McClarin v. The City of New York
1:16-cv-06846
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 8, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Justin McClarin sued NYPD officers Grieco, Ardolino, Quattrochi, Schumacher and Martinez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and assault/battery; jury found for McClarin on unlawful search and malicious prosecution but for defendants on excessive force/assault.
- Jury awarded $115,000 in compensatory damages and $775,000 in punitive damages; defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) or a new trial (Rule 59); McClarin moved to reinstate a previously dismissed Monell claim.
- Key disputed facts: officers entered McClarin’s apartment at 393 Warwick Street without a warrant after a 911 report and a tip from Marisol Lopez; officers had arrested/processed two other persons first; Miranda (the alleged victim) denied being held and had facial injuries but received no immediate medical care.
- Trial evidence supported a jury inference that officers did not reasonably believe exigent circumstances existed and that officers participated in fabricating/coercing Miranda’s statement implicating McClarin.
- The court denied defendants’ post-trial motions and McClarin’s request to reinstate the Monell claim, entering judgment consistent with the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful warrantless entry / exigent circumstances | Entry was unreasonable; no valid exigency | Officers reasonably believed exigency justified warrantless entry; qualified immunity | JMOL denied; jury credibility finding supports no exigency and defeats qualified immunity |
| Malicious prosecution / fabricated evidence | Officers coerced Miranda and planted evidence; prosecution lacked probable cause | Complaint signed by Ardolino; probable cause existed | JMOL denied; evidence supported jury finding that officers fabricated/coerced statements, negating probable cause and qualified immunity |
| Exclusion of recorded jail phone calls | (Defendants) recording impeaching; exclusion prejudiced defense | (Plaintiff) late, undisclosed exhibit; ambush | Court excluded recording for failure to disclose (trial-by-ambush); not a basis for new trial; jury heard other corroborating testimony |
| Jury instructions (missing-witness, charge scope, non-economic damages, punitive-payability) | Instructions were proper and corrective | Some instructions contradicted defense theory or omitted crimes | Court upheld instructions as appropriate and not prejudicial |
| Punitive damages excessiveness | Awards excessive relative to harm | Awards disproportionate; require reduction | Denied; Gore/State Farm factors satisfied; punitive/compensatory ratios within acceptable range |
| Monell claim reinstatement | (McClarin) municipal liability should be reconsidered | Prior summary-judgment dismissal correct; no policy evidence | Denied; court adheres to prior ruling that plaintiff failed to show municipal deliberate indifference |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Plastics, Inc. v. Brine, Inc., 79 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 1996) (standard for Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law)
- Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) (qualified immunity and reasonableness of officers’ belief in exigent circumstances)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (police fabrication of evidence defeats qualified immunity)
- Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1991) (probable cause on lesser charges does not foreclose malicious prosecution on more serious, distinct charges)
- United States v. Erb, 543 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1976) (limits on adverse inference from a missing witness equally available to both parties)
- United States v. Torres, 845 F.2d 1165 (2d Cir. 1988) (trial court discretion on missing-witness instruction)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) (guideposts for assessing punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (due-process considerations for punitive/compensatory ratios)
- Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (ratio analysis and due-process limits on punitive awards)
- Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (comparative guidance on punitive awards in constitutional-tort cases)
- United States v. LoRusso, 695 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1982) (district court power to reconsider interlocutory orders)