Eckardt v. City of White Plains
87 A.D.3d 1049
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest; alleges taser use by an officer after arrival at police headquarters while handcuffed.
- Officer testifies he used a taser once and plaintiff was not handcuffed at the time; plaintiff allegedly continually attempted to assault officers.
- Plaintiff sues City of White Plains, White Plains Police Department, and Officer Aragon for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/supervision, and 42 USC § 1983 claims.
- Court granted some summary-judgment motions; issue is whether City and Aragon are liable on various claims based on scope of employment and municipal liability standards.
- Court holds City may be vicariously liable for state-law assault and battery under respondeat superior; IIED against City barred by public policy; negligent-hiring/supervision barred; 42 USC § 1983 claim depends on whether policy, practice, or training deficiencies exist and on Aragon’s conduct.
- Fourth cause of action: City prima facie show of adequate taser training; plaintiff fails to raise triable fact on City liability, but Aragon’s individual 1983 claim remains for issues of objective reasonableness of force.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City is liable for assault/battery | Aragon’s actions were within employment scope and constitute tortious conduct. | Respondeat superior applies; City not automatically liable; need proper scope and policy. | City may be liable for assault/battery under respondeat superior. |
| Whether IIED claim against City is barred | IIED against government entities is actionable under standards. | Public policy bars IIED claims against governmental entities. | Second cause of action (IIED) barred against City. |
| Whether negligent hiring/supervision claims survive | City negligently hired/retained/supervised officers who used force. | Traditionally, employers are not liable for negligent hiring/supervision absent exceptional circumstances. | Third cause of action dismissed against City and Aragon; no municipal liability for negligent hiring/supervision under record. |
| Whether § 1983 claim against City can lie for excessive force | City’s practices or failure to train caused unconstitutional conduct. | City not liable under Monell unless policy, practice, or training deficiency shown; training adequate here. | Appellants established City’s prima facie entitlement on fourth claim; Court denied dismissal against Aragon, but City’s § 1983 liability requires proof of deliberate indifference—plaintiff failed to show for City. |
| Whether Officer Aragon’s use of force was objectively reasonable | Use of taser was excessive/unreasonable. | Reasonableness judged on scene from view of a reasonable officer; plaintiff bears burden to show unreasonableness. | Plaintiff failed to negate all triable issues; issue of objective reasonableness for Aragon remained for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. City of New Rochelle, 62 AD3d 830 (2009) (public policy bars municipal IIED claims)
- Liranzo v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 300 AD2d 548 (2002) (IIED against government entity barred)
- Karoon v. New York City Tr. Auth., 241 AD2d 323 (1997) (negligent hiring/supervision exception inapplicable here)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal § 1983 training claims)
- Jackson v. Police Dept. of City of New York, 192 AD2d 641 (1993) (training claims require showing link to constitutional violation)
- Mays v. City of Middletown, 70 AD3d 900 (2010) (training deficiency must be closely related to injury)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Moore v. City of New York, 68 AD3d 946 (2009) ( Fourth Amendment analysis of use of force on scene)
- Rivera v. City of New York, 40 AD3d 334 (2007) (perspective of reasonable officer on the scene)