293 F. Supp. 3d 306
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- On Labor Day 2015 plaintiff Lerin Piece was accused by a RadioShack manager of attempting to steal merchandise; officers arrived to investigate.
- Plaintiff fled when told he would be handcuffed; Officer Taqi pursued on foot while Sergeant Ivan Mercado and Officer Sonia Belardo pursued in a marked squad car.
- Plaintiff ran into the middle of busy Flatbush Avenue and made contact with the passenger-front corner of Belardo’s car; he stood up, was arrested, taken to the hospital, treated with minor injuries, and released.
- At trial the jury found Belardo liable for excessive force (car contact) and Mercado liable for failure to intervene; awarded $3,000 compensatory and $12,000 punitive damages.
- Defendants renewed Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions; the court granted JMOL for Mercado (failure to intervene) and ordered a new trial for Belardo on excessive-force, denying JMOL as to Belardo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sergeant Mercado can be liable for failure to intervene | Mercado had opportunity to prevent the car impact and failed to act | No realistic opportunity to intercede from passenger seat; no evidence he knew Belardo intended force | JMOL for Mercado: no evidence of realistic opportunity to intervene; verdict vacated as to him |
| Whether Officer Belardo used excessive force by causing/allowing the car to hit plaintiff | Belardo intentionally or recklessly struck plaintiff (plaintiff testified car accelerated into him) | Belardo attempted to brake; collision was accidental or at most negligence; evidence contradicts plaintiff’s account | JMOL denied as to Belardo; but trial verdict found against clear weight of evidence and new trial ordered |
| Whether Belardo is entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiff: jury verdict shows clearly established violation | Defendants: evidence insufficient to show constitutional violation; Belardo acted reasonably | Qualified-immunity denied on Rule 50(b) posture (viewing evidence for plaintiff), but court found verdict against clear weight and granted new trial |
| Whether a new trial is warranted under Rule 59 | Plaintiff: jury verdict should stand | Defendants: verdict against clear weight given medical records, photos, witness testimony, and counsel errors | New trial granted as to Belardo (verdict against clear weight; counsel’s misleading presentation reinforced need for retrial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for Rule 50 JMOL and drawing inferences against the moving party)
- Cash v. Cty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2011) (heightened burden to grant JMOL after jury verdict)
- Cross v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 417 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2005) (jury-deliberation context increases Rule 50 burden)
- Farrior v. Waterford Bd. of Educ., 277 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2002) (new trial appropriate when verdict is against clear weight of evidence)
- Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez, 670 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2012) (court may independently assess credibility for Rule 59 new-trial motions)
- O'Neill v. Krzeminski, 839 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1988) (elements of failure-to-intervene claim)
- Nimely v. City of N.Y., 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (grounds for new trial include significant legal error in trial presentation)
- Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1949) (judicial recognition that courts must apply common sense in evaluating testimony)