Theodat v. City of New York
1:16-cv-03977
| E.D.N.Y | Sep 13, 2019Background
- On May 25, 2015, NYPD Officer Joel Crooms arrested Jeffrey Theodat for allegedly smoking marijuana; Theodat says he was greeting a friend and was not smoking. The arrest involved handcuffing and a shoulder/arm twist; Theodat was detained ~2.75 hours.
- At trial, Crooms testified he smelled and saw Theodat smoking and picked up a dropped marijuana cigarette; Theodat denied smoking (but did not explicitly deny possession) and said he was arrested after fist-bumping Jahneiro Plummer.
- A jury found for Theodat on false arrest, battery (against Crooms), and failure-to-intervene (against Officer Christopher McDonald), awarding compensatory and substantial punitive damages: $100,000 compensatory and $200,000 punitive (false arrest) plus $1,000 compensatory and $7,500 punitive (battery) against Crooms; $150,000 punitive against McDonald.
- Defendants moved under Rule 59 for a new trial/remittitur (Crooms) and under Rule 50 for JMOL (McDonald). The court largely denied the motions but found some punitive awards excessive.
- The court concluded the jury could credit Theodat and discredit Crooms, declined to disturb the verdict on credibility/probable-cause grounds, denied qualified-immunity relief for Crooms, denied JMOL for McDonald, but remitted punitive damages to $15,000 total against Crooms and $5,000 against McDonald unless plaintiff accepted remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against weight of evidence / warranting new trial | Theodat: jury credited his account; arrest lacked probable cause | Defs: evidence thin for false arrest; Theodat never explicitly denied possession; jury verdict speculative | Denied — jury credibility determination stands; record supports reasonable inferences favoring Theodat |
| Devenpeck instruction (probable cause for any crime suffices) | Theodat: no need; jury decided factual dispute | Defs: court should have instructed that probable cause for any offense suffices | No reversible error — if omission, harmless because facts would not support an alternative crime finding |
| Qualified immunity for Crooms | Theodat: jury found false arrest so immunity inappropriate | Defs: arguable probable cause or reasonable officers could disagree | Denied — under jury’s finding for Theodat, conduct was not objectively reasonable; immunity not available |
| JMOL on failure-to-intervene (McDonald) | Theodat: McDonald observed and handled him; had opportunity to intervene | Defs: McDonald lacked knowledge or realistic opportunity to intervene | Denied — reasonable juror could find McDonald observed arrest and had realistic opportunity to intervene |
| Excessiveness of compensatory damages | Theodat: compensatory award fits loss of liberty and physical pain | Defs: award excessive | Denied — $101,000 compensatory not so excessive as to shock conscience given detention and injury evidence |
| Excessiveness of punitive damages / remittitur | Theodat: punitive warranted by reprehensible conduct | Defs: punitive awards disproportionate and excessive | Court granted remittitur: reduced punitive to $15,000 (Crooms total for false arrest and battery) and $5,000 (McDonald for failure to intervene); new trial on punitive damages unless plaintiff accepts remittitur |
Key Cases Cited
- Mallis v. Bankers Tr. Co., 717 F.2d 683 (2d Cir. 1983) (new-trial standard; judge’s disagreement with jury insufficient alone)
- Bevevino v. Saydjari, 574 F.2d 676 (2d Cir. 1978) (grounds for new trial include verdict against weight of evidence)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243 (1940) (new trial may be premised on substantial legal errors)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (officer’s subjective reason for arrest need not match the offense supplying probable cause)
- Dancy v. McGinley, 843 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2016) (qualified-immunity standards and harmless-error review)
- Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344 (2d Cir. 2007) (court decides objective reasonableness after jury resolves material facts)
- Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (elements of failure-to-intervene claim)
- Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) (guidepost on punitive/compensatory ratios)
- DiSorbo v. Hoy, 343 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003) (remittitur of punitive damages where award excessive)
- King v. Macri, 993 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1993) (comparison of punitive awards in police-misconduct context)
- Gardner v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 907 F.2d 1348 (2d Cir. 1990) (awards for loss of liberty and pain/suffering reduced on remittitur)
- Martinez v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 445 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2006) (compensatory damages for false arrest include loss of liberty and emotional/physical distress)