Harris v. City of New York, 153 A.D.3d 1333

Police executed a no-knock search warrant at Audrey Harris's home based on a confidential informant's tip that weapons would be found.
Harris and her two teenage sons were handcuffed and detained for about two hours while officers secured and searched the premises.
Harris (individually and on behalf of three children) sued the City and NYPD asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims, and state-law claims for assault and battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment.
Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss those claims; the Supreme Court (Kings County) granted dismissal of the § 1983, assault and battery, and false arrest/imprisonment claims as to the City and NYPD.
On appeal, the Second Department affirmed, concluding (1) the court-issued search warrant gave rise to a presumption of probable cause for the occupants’ detention that Harris failed to rebut, (2) the detention and handcuffing were objectively reasonable, and (3) Harris failed to show a municipal policy or custom giving rise to § 1983 liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of detention/false arrest & false imprisonment	Harris argued the warrant detention presumption was rebuttable because police failed to adequately corroborate the confidential informant	The warrant is court‑issued and creates a presumption of probable cause for detaining occupants during the search	Affirmed: court warrant creates presumptive probable cause; Harris failed to rebut it
Excessive force / assault & battery	Harris argued handcuffing and detention amounted to excessive force	Officers contend handcuffing/detention while executing warrant was reasonable given safety concerns and unknown occupants	Affirmed: force was objectively reasonable; no triable issue of injury or excessive force
Municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983	Harris argued City policies/practices caused the constitutional violations	City argued no policy/custom caused the conduct; respondeat superior insufficient	Affirmed: plaintiff offered only conclusory assertions; no evidence of policy or custom
Need for corroboration before warrant issuance (civil context)	Harris contended lack of corroboration made the warrant invalid in civil suit	City argued criminal-law corroboration standards do not apply in the civil context for rebutting warrant presumption	Affirmed: civil plaintiffs need not show pre-warrant corroboration; Delgado and related precedent reject transplanting criminal corroboration standards

Shaw v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 698 (affirming that probable cause is a complete defense to false arrest)
Paulos v. City of New York, 122 A.D.3d 815 (same principle re: false arrest defense)
Ali v. City of New York, 122 A.D.3d 888 (presumption of probable cause from court‑issued warrant; burden to rebut)
Delgado v. City of New York, 86 A.D.3d 502 (rejecting application of criminal corroboration standards in civil actions challenging warrant detentions)
Boyd v. City of New York, 149 A.D.3d 683 (officer privileged to use reasonable force executing a warrant; handcuffing may be reasonable)
Vizzari v. Hernandez, 1 A.D.3d 431 (factors for excessive force analysis: severity, immediate threat, resistance)
Washington-Herrera v. Town of Greenburgh, 101 A.D.3d 986 (objective reasonableness standard and injury requirement for excessive force claims)
Combs v. City of New York, 130 A.D.3d 862 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
Hudson Val. Mar., Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt, 79 A.D.3d 700 (discussing municipal liability standard under § 1983)