57 F. Supp. 3d 173
E.D.N.Y.2014Background
- In the 1980s–90s NYPD detectives Louis Eppolito and Steven Caracappa leaked confidential police intelligence to, and later committed murders for, Lucchese crime figures; both were later federally convicted. These consolidated civil suits were brought by relatives of seven victims against the detectives and New York City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
- In April 1984 confidential NYPD Intelligence Division reports were found at mobster Rosario Gambino’s home; investigation linked photocopies to the 62nd Precinct and bore Eppolito’s fingerprints. Internal Affairs referred charges; Eppolito was suspended and a disciplinary hearing followed in April 1985.
- The departmental hearing was unusually handled: tried on stipulations the morning of trial by a junior attorney, omitted key evidence (e.g., that documents were precinct photocopies with Eppolito’s fingerprints), and produced no closing by the Advocate; Deputy Trial Commissioner Mo recommended exoneration and Commissioner Ben Ward approved reinstatement days later.
- After reinstatement, Eppolito (and Caracappa) developed ties with Lucchese figures and provided information and assistance that enabled or facilitated multiple murders between 1986–1991; some victims were killed using police vehicles or leaked investigation files.
- Plaintiffs allege City liability based on (a) Ward’s 1985 decision clearing Eppolito and (b) a broader NYPD custom of tolerating corruption to avoid bad press (as described in the Mollen Commission Report), which they say shows deliberate indifference and proximately caused the murders.
- Court disposition on summary judgment: City’s motion denied as to federal § 1983 (Monell) claims but granted as to state law claims; Di Lapi plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual/timeliness of § 1983 claims | Claims did not accrue until plaintiffs knew or with diligence should have discovered City’s causal role (diligence-discovery rule); many only learned of links when detectives were indicted in 2005 | Claims accrued earlier when victims died or when mid-1990s press reports provided notice; some plaintiffs’ suspicions triggered duty to inquire | Applied diligence-discovery rule; for several plaintiffs accrual was not obviously prior to 2005 — triable issues remain as to whether press or subjective suspicions gave sufficient inquiry notice; summary judgment on timeliness denied for federal claims |
| Applicability of diligence-discovery rule | Rule applies where government conceals acts or plaintiff reasonably could not discern cause; fits rogue-officer facts similar to Whitey Bulger/Boston cases | City urges narrow use and argues publicity/subjective suspicion put plaintiffs on notice earlier | Court applies diligence-discovery rule, finds some claims (e.g., Greenwald, Pipitone) accrued in 2005; for others (Lino, Bishop, Heindel, Boriello) factual disputes preclude summary judgment on accrual |
| Monell — policy/custom and deliberate indifference | Failure to discipline Eppolito and Mollen Commission evidence of a department-wide practice to avoid bad press establish policy/custom; Ward’s conduct shows deliberate indifference | City denies deliberate indifference and causal link; argues single disciplinary decision insufficient and that murders could have occurred regardless | Jury issues exist: Mollen Report and 1985 hearing support inference of municipal policy and deliberate indifference by Ward; causation (whether failure to discipline was moving force) is for jury; summary judgment denied on federal Monell claims |
| State-law claims’ timeliness and tolling (CPLR § 215(8), EPTL § 5-4.1) | Tolling statutes extend limitations where criminal action was commenced against "same defendant," and should include employer even if employer not criminally charged (per some App. Div. precedent) | City contends "same defendant" means the same criminally charged defendant; City was not charged so tolling statutes do not apply | Court follows controlling state-appellate authority (and plain statutory text) that tolling does not apply to uncharged employers; state claims are time-barred and summary judgment granted for City on state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing constitutional deprivation)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (deliberate indifference standard for municipal failure to train/supervise)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (municipal liability requires proof that policymaker disregarded known/obvious risk)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (diligence-discovery accrual rule for concealed government wrongdoing)
- Litif v. United States, 670 F.3d 39 (First Circuit applying diligence-discovery rule in Whitey Bulger-related claims)
- Donahue v. United States, 634 F.3d 615 (First Circuit on accrual where press coverage focused causation)
- Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1040 (Second Circuit articulating emboldening causation theory from failure to discipline)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (§ 1983 accrual principles)
- Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (limitations policy and accrual discussion)