Background
- On Sept. 4, 2010, NYPD Officers Barreto, Crocitto, and Palmerini stopped a vehicle, claimed to find cocaine, and arrested plaintiffs Higgins, Vaughn, and Tarrant; criminal charges were dismissed on Sept. 28, 2012.
- Plaintiffs sued the City, Officer Barreto, and a John/Jane Doe officer in Feb. 2013 asserting state and federal claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and excessive force; state-law false arrest/excessive force claims were later dismissed by stipulation.
- Plaintiffs moved on April 4, 2014 to amend to (1) substitute Crocitto for the Doe and (2) add Palmerini, asserting state malicious prosecution claims and federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, false arrest, and excessive force.
- The federal false arrest and excessive force claims accrued on Sept. 4, 2010 and were governed by a three-year statute of limitations, expiring Sept. 4, 2013; the amendment was sought after that date.
- Supreme Court granted leave to amend; on appeal the Appellate Division held the § 1983 false arrest and excessive force claims against Crocitto and Palmerini did not relate back and are time-barred, but allowed the timely state and federal malicious prosecution claims against the officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adding officers Crocitto and Palmerini relates back to original complaint for § 1983 false arrest/excessive force claims | Relation-back is satisfied because claims arise from same transaction and parties are united in interest; test is conduct-specific not claim-specific | No relation-back: lack of "unity of interest" between City and officers for § 1983 claims because City is not vicariously liable for officers' § 1983 conduct | Denied relation-back: officers are not united in interest with City for § 1983 false arrest/excessive force claims; those claims are time-barred against the officers |
| Whether CPLR 1024 substitution of Crocitto for Doe was properly made | Substitution appropriate to identify the previously anonymous officer | Defendants challenged sufficiency of CPLR 1024 showing | Court did not reach CPLR 1024 question because relation-back failure disposed of the federal claims |
| Whether officers can be added on timely malicious prosecution claims | Plaintiffs alleged officers participated in initiation of prosecution and amendment should be allowed | City argued officers did not initiate prosecution; motion to add should be denied | Amendment to add officers on malicious prosecution (state and federal) permitted under CPLR 3025(b); claims not palpably insufficient |
| Whether unity of interest test is claim-specific or transaction-specific | Plaintiffs: unity depends on underlying transaction and jural relationship, not on specific claims | Defendants: unity requires that parties' fortunes rise and fall together for the particular claim (i.e., vicarious liability for that claim) | Court: unity of interest is claim-specific; because City cannot be vicariously liable under § 1983, unity fails for the § 1983 false arrest/excessive force claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722 (2d Cir.) (governs three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims)
- Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. 1995) (elements and policy concerns for CPLR relation-back when adding new defendants)
- Brunero v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 121 A.D.3d 624 (1st Dept. 2014) (unity of interest may differ by claim; allowed relation-back for negligence but not gross negligence)
- Bermudez v. City of New York, 790 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.) (defining role that supports malicious prosecution liability)
- Mongardi v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., 45 A.D.3d 1149 (3d Dept. 2007) (unity of interest is more than notice; parties must stand or fall together)
- Cuello v. Patel, 257 A.D.2d 499 (1st Dept. 1999) (permitted post-limitations joinder of employee where employer would be vicariously liable)