James Benbow v. Police Officer Brian Feeley; Police Officer Matthew Rosiello, 1:17-cv-06457

Plaintiff James Benbow brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against the City of New York and NYPD officers.
After prior summary judgment proceedings, only claims of excessive force and assault/battery against two officers, and a failure-to-intervene claim against Officer Kenneth Anderson, remained.
The court reserved judgment on the failure-to-intervene claim, pending supplemental briefing on qualified immunity.
The dispute centers on whether Anderson had a clearly established duty to intervene during the use of deadly force by fellow officers.
The court assumes familiarity with previous factual and procedural history, focusing its decision on summary judgment for Anderson’s failure-to-intervene liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified Immunity for Failure to Intervene	Illegality of shooting was clearly established; duty to intervene automatically attaches.	Law must clearly establish both illegality of force and officer's duty to intervene in that context.	Anderson entitled to qualified immunity; law did not clearly establish his duty to intervene during the shooting.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden shifting)
Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217 (qualified immunity standard)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (clearly established law must not be defined at a high level of generality)
Lennox v. Miller, 968 F.3d 150 (Second Circuit approach to failure-to-intervene liability and qualified immunity)
Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100 (qualified immunity and specific factual context for excessive force)
City of Escondido v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38 (necessity of precedent squarely governing specific facts in qualified immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity shields officers absent clearly established law governing their own conduct)