Higgins v. City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 7748

On Sept. 4, 2010, NYPD Officers Barreto, Crocitto, and Palmerini stopped a vehicle, claimed to find crack cocaine, and arrested plaintiffs; criminal complaints were dismissed on Sept. 28, 2012.
Plaintiffs sued the City, Officer Barreto, and an unnamed partner (Doe) in Feb. 2013, alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and excessive force under state and federal law; some state-law false arrest/excessive force claims were earlier dismissed with prejudice by stipulation.
On Apr. 4, 2014 (after the 3-year federal limitations period had run), plaintiffs moved to amend to substitute Crocitto for the Doe and add Palmerini, asserting state malicious-prosecution claims and federal/state false arrest, excessive force, and malicious-prosecution claims against the officers.
Supreme Court granted leave to amend; defendants appealed the addition of federal false arrest and excessive force claims against Crocitto and Palmerini as time-barred and not subject to relation-back.
The Appellate Division held the federal false arrest and excessive force claims time-barred as to Crocitto and Palmerini because the relation-back doctrine failed for lack of "unity of interest" between the City and the officers; affirmed allowing timely malicious-prosecution claims against the officers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal false arrest/excessive force claims against newly added officers relate back under CPLR 203	Higgins: relation-back is conduct-specific, not claim-specific; new officers should be added because underlying transaction is same	City: relation-back fails because no unity of interest between City and officers for § 1983 claims; those claims are time-barred	Denied: relation-back fails; federal false arrest/excessive force claims time-barred as to Crocitto and Palmerini
Whether unity of interest exists between City and officers for § 1983 claims	Higgins: employment ties and shared transaction suffice for unity of interest	City: City cannot be vicariously liable under § 1983; fortunes do not stand or fall together	Held: No unity of interest — municipal vicarious liability unavailable for § 1983 means relation-back cannot be satisfied
Whether CPLR 1024 substitution of Crocitto for Doe was sufficient	Higgins: sought substitution under CPLR 1024	City: substitution inadequate and time-barred; reliance unnecessary if relation-back fails	Court declined to decide CPLR 1024 issue because relation-back failure was dispositive
Whether officers can be added on timely malicious-prosecution claims	Higgins: officers actively participated in prosecution; claims timely	City: officers did not initiate prosecution; claims insufficient	Held: Amendment allowed as to malicious-prosecution claims (federal and state); claims not palpably insufficient

Veal v. Geraci, 23 F.3d 722 (2d Cir.) (federal § 1983 statute of limitations principles)
Buran v. Coupal, 87 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y.) (relation-back criteria for adding new defendants)
Brunero v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 121 A.D.3d 624 (1st Dep't 2014) (unity of interest may differ by claim; negligence vs. gross negligence analysis)
Vanderburg v. Brodman, 231 A.D.2d 146 (1st Dep't 1996) (definition of unity of interest — fortunes "stand or fall together")
Mondello v. New York Blood Ctr., 80 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y.) (vicarious liability requirement for unity of interest)
Cuello v. Patel, 257 A.D.2d 499 (1st Dep't 1999) (permitting addition of employed physician where hospital could be vicariously liable)
Bermudez v. City of New York, 790 F.3d 368 (2d Cir.) (what constitutes active role in initiating prosecution for malicious prosecution)