Davila v. City of New York
139 A.D.3d 890
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background
- On March 10, 2005, two NYPD officers responded to 911 calls about a disturbance at plaintiff Demetrio Davila's apartment; Davila had a long history of mental illness and had been exhibiting dangerous behavior (throwing items, starting or attempting to start a fire).
- Officers encountered Davila in the stairwell, nearly naked; he punched one officer, fled up the stairs screaming, and a physical struggle ensued in which both officers and Davila fell down a flight of stairs.
- Davila sued the City and officers asserting claims including negligence and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; at trial the jury found liability and awarded $5 million for pain and suffering.
- Defendants moved under CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence and excessive-force claims and under CPLR 4404 to set aside damages; the trial court denied those branches of the motion.
- The Appellate Division reversed: it granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing both the excessive-force and negligence claims, concluding officers’ force was objectively reasonable and/or entitled to qualified immunity, and that governmental function immunity barred negligence liability (and the defense was timely pleaded).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Davila argued officers used unreasonable force in confronting, restraining, and causing his fall. | Officers contended their actions were objectively reasonable given a tense, rapidly evolving encounter with an emotionally disturbed person who had assaulted an officer. | Court: Grant JMOL for defendants — force was objectively reasonable and officers entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Qualified immunity | Davila contended his rights were clearly established such that immunity should not apply. | Defendants argued existing precedent did not place the unlawfulness of their conduct beyond debate. | Court: Grant — officers of reasonable competence could disagree; qualified immunity applies. |
| Negligence (municipal liability) | Davila argued the officers negligently acted and caused injury; negligence claim should survive. | Defendants argued their actions were discretionary governmental functions entitled to immunity. | Court: Grant JMOL for defendants — acts were discretionary; governmental function immunity bars negligence claim. |
| Timeliness of pleading governmental immunity defense | Davila argued the defense was untimely and thus could not shield defendants. | Defendants argued they timely pleaded governmental immunity in their verified answer and amended answer. | Court: Grant — defense was timely pleaded; trial court erred in finding it untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force objective reasonableness standard)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity analysis in excessive-force context)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (context-specific qualified immunity inquiry)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (requirement that precedent place right beyond debate for qualified immunity to fail)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity; fact-specific inquiry and split-second judgment context)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (reasonableness in rapidly evolving threats; "reasonable but mistaken judgments")
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (if reasonable officers could disagree, immunity applies)
- Valdez v. City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69 (governmental function immunity doctrine for discretionary acts)
- Haddock v. City of New York, 75 N.Y.2d 478 (distinguishing discretionary from ministerial acts for immunity)
- Mon v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 309 (discussing governmental immunity and liability limits)