253 F. Supp. 3d 462
N.D.N.Y.2017Background
- On May 3, 2013 Brad Hulett, a man with long‑term physical/cognitive impairments, refused bus driver Wallace’s order to sit on a Centro bus; supervisor Robinson and SPD Officers Coleman and Galvin were summoned. Video shows Hulett standing, holding a pole, was tasered at least twice, removed head‑first, dragged, and later transported to jail intake before eventually being taken to a hospital and found to have a fractured left hip. Criminal charges were dismissed months later.
- Hulett sued Centro (the transit authority), Centro employees (Wallace, Robinson), the City of Syracuse and officers Coleman and Galvin (individual and official capacities), and Rural/Metro (EMS provider) and EMT/paramedic employees, asserting ADA/NYSHRL disability discrimination, §1983 claims (excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, medical indifference), and state tort claims (assault/battery, false imprisonment, medical negligence).
- Defendants each moved for summary judgment; Hulett cross‑moved. The Court reviewed surveillance videos, deposition testimony, expert reports, and disputed facts about refusal of medical care and the sequence/timing of the arrest and use of force.
- Court dismissed some claims: §1983 medical‑indifference claim against Centro supervisor Robinson and all §1983 claims against Rural/Metro (no state action). Court also dismissed official‑capacity claims as redundant and Hulett’s ADA injunctive claim against Officer Coleman.
- Key claims surviving to trial: ADA and NYSHRL disability discrimination against Centro and certain Centro employees; §1983 excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and medical indifference against the City and Officers Coleman and Galvin; state assault/battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against the City and those officers; medical negligence claim against Rural/Metro on state law (but not §1983).
- Court denied spoliation sanctions and refused to exclude the parties’ EMS experts; a jury trial was set.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA/NYSHRL discrimination (Centro) | Hulett: Centro denied equal access/failed to accommodate by forcing him to sit/remove him because of disability | Centro: removal request could not proximately cause the injuries; removal was justified as a direct threat to safety | ADA/NYSHRL claims survive summary judgment against Centro; proximate‑cause and direct‑threat defenses rejected on summary judgment (fact issues for jury) |
| §1983 deliberate indifference (Robinson) | Hulett: Robinson supervised removal and failed to provide/seek medical care for likely serious injury | Robinson: once police and EMS were on scene, deference to them was reasonable; no knowledge he should have acted | Claim against Robinson dismissed—no reasonable jury could find he knew or should have known further action was required once police/paramedics controlled scene |
| Excessive force / assault & battery (City officers) | Hulett: taser deployment, ejection, and dragging were objectively unreasonable and caused serious injury | City/officers: force was necessary to remove noncompliant passenger; qualified immunity applies | Claims survive summary judgment; material facts (use/timing of force, risk, resistance) are disputed and preclude qualified immunity at this stage |
| §1983 false arrest / false imprisonment / malicious prosecution (City officers) | Hulett: arrest lacked probable cause; criminal case terminated favorably; malice may be inferred | City: probable cause existed for disorderly conduct/resisting arrest; dismissals don’t necessarily show favorable termination | Claims survive summary judgment; factual disputes about timing, probable cause, favorable termination and malice remain for jury |
| §1983 medical indifference (City officers) | Hulett: officers failed to send him to hospital despite signs of serious injury after tasing and removal | City/officers: relied on EMS on scene; transported to jail appropriately; no deliberate indifference | Claim survives summary judgment—factual disputes about what officers knew/should have known and whether risk was substantial preclude dismissal |
| §1983 against Rural/Metro (EMS) | Hulett: paramedics failed to provide/ensure hospital care; refusals not properly obtained; state action via close nexus/joint activity | Rural/Metro: private actors not state actors; no compulsion/joint action/public function | §1983 claims dismissed against Rural/Metro: plaintiff did not show state action under compulsion, joint‑action, or public‑function tests; state negligence claim remains |
| Spoliation (Centro & Rural/Metro) | Hulett: Centro and Rural/Metro failed to preserve surveillance/video/records requested shortly after incident | Defendants: Centro recorded and retained interior bus video only; Rural/Metro followed practice and loss of records not negligent | Court denied sanctions; Centro’s preservation conduct troubling but sanction (adverse inference) inappropriate; Rural/Metro spoliation claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (role of genuine issue at summary judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence may contradict testimonial account at summary judgment)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under §1983 requires policy/custom causation)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (Fourteenth Amendment deliberate‑indifference standard—objective mens rea for pretrial detainees)
- Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308 (proximate cause and intervening/superseding acts under New York law)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (ADA standards and scope)
- Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)