Figueroa v. Mazza
59 F. Supp. 3d 481
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- On June 29–30, 2010 police received and investigated 18 photos of a distressed toddler, some showing the child’s genitals; the photos included a date-stamped money order and a newspaper in the background. A Duane Reade employee reported a caller tried to cancel the photo order.
- Calls to the Duane Reade were traced to a cell phone later located on plaintiff at his mother’s Manhattan apartment on June 30, 2010; specialized NYPD units had mobilized to find the child and mother but had not located them by that evening.
- Plaintiff resisted officers’ attempts to escort him from his mother’s apartment; officers Karolkowski and Failla applied de minimis force to move him to a police car. While in the police car an unnamed officer allegedly struck plaintiff with five rapid punches demanding the phone; Failla and Chan were in the front seat.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene, and brought a state-law assault claim; after a jury verdict for plaintiff on false arrest, excessive force, and assault (and a mistrial on failure to intervene), the defendants renewed Rule 50 motions.
- The court granted defendants’ renewed Rule 50 motions, set aside the jury verdict, and entered judgment n.o.v., finding (a) probable cause supported the arrest, (b) force used to escort plaintiff was de minimis and reasonable, and (c) Failla and Chan lacked a realistic opportunity to intercede against the rapid assault by an unknown officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (Fourth Amendment) | No probable cause to arrest plaintiff at his mother’s apartment; arrest unlawful | Police had reasonably trustworthy information linking plaintiff (phone traced to him) to the photos and to possible criminal activity; probable cause existed for multiple offenses | Court: Arrest supported by probable cause; Rule 50 for defendants granted |
| Excessive force / Assault (§ 1983 & NY law) | Officers used excessive force while escorting and assaulted plaintiff | Force used to move plaintiff to the police car was de minimis and reasonable given his physical resistance; no intentional fear or harmful contact by defendants | Court: Force by Karolkowski and Failla was de minimis/reasonable; excessive force and assault claims against them dismissed |
| Failure to intervene (§ 1983) | Failla and Chan failed to stop the unnamed officer’s assault in the police car | The punches were delivered in rapid succession (<20 seconds); Failla and Chan had no realistic opportunity to intercede | Court: No realistic opportunity to intervene; failure-to-intervene claim dismissed |
| Timeliness / standard for Rule 50(b) | (implicit) jury verdict should stand absent clear legal deficiency | Defendants timely renewed Rule 50 motions; court may set aside verdict where evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion | Court: Applied Rule 50 standards, found overwhelming evidence for dismissal, granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyer v. MacDougall, 201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952) (directed verdict appropriate when only one reasonable conclusion exists)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1995) (Rule 50(b) standard: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant; only grant JMOL when no legally sufficient evidentiary basis exists)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause for any offense defeats a false-arrest claim)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 2004) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive force claims judged by objective reasonableness)
- Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (officer’s duty to intervene when observing excessive force)