393 F.Supp.3d 388
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- On February 18, 2016 Dr. Rachel Wellner was arrested after an altercation with NYPD Officers Niguel Vega and Nicolett Davodian and charged with four offenses; she ultimately pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct (10 days community service) and other charges were dropped.
- Officers Vega and Davodian told ADA Michael McCarthy that Wellner struck and injured Officer Vega with her car and relayed allegedly inflammatory statements by Wellner; ADA testified those representations were important to charging decisions.
- Evidence at trial included video/stills, ER records showing no objective leg injury, expert testimony disputing Officer Vega’s injury, and Wellner’s denials of the quoted statements.
- Wellner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (denial of right to fair trial, excessive force, failure to intervene) and state claims; jury found only the denial-of-fair-trial claim against both officers and awarded $1,181,549 for past lost earnings (no other damages).
- Defendants moved for JMOL and a new trial; the court denied those motions but found the $1,181,549 award excessive and ordered remittitur to $200,000 (or a new trial limited to damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for denial-of-fair-trial verdict | Officers fabricated material evidence forwarded to prosecutor causing deprivation of liberty (detention, four court appearances) | No reasonable jury could find fabrication caused deprivation or was material; JMOL warranted | Denied JMOL: evidence viewed in plaintiff's favor supported jury's finding of fabrication, materiality, and liberty deprivation |
| Causation for lost-earnings award | Past lost earnings flowed from termination after the prosecution and reputation harm following the fabricated evidence | Lost earnings were not caused by officers’ fabrications; termination decisions preceded or were based on arrest/publicity, so award is unrelated and excessive | Court held plaintiff failed to prove fabricated evidence caused termination; $1,181,549 award for lost earnings was unsupported and excessive |
| Remittitur vs. new trial | Plaintiff sought full award | Defendants sought new trial or remittitur | Court granted remittitur: reduced award to $200,000 (compensatory for liberty, distress) or allowed plaintiff to retry damages only |
| Effect of McDonough/Heck on claim accrual | Wellner: her fabricated-evidence claim is not barred because charges tied to fabricated evidence were dropped; conviction for minor disorderly conduct does not invalidate claim | Defendants: McDonough requires favorable termination to bring fabricated-evidence claim; her guilty plea defeats that requirement | Court held McDonough and Heck do not bar Wellner: her prosecution as to the charges relying on fabricated evidence terminated in her favor (those charges were dropped), and her §1983 claim does not attack the disorderly-conduct conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir.) (standard for Rule 50 review)
- Simblest v. Maynard, 427 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970) (Rule 50 standard: view evidence for nonmovant)
- AMW Materials Testing, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 584 F.3d 436 (2d Cir.) (Rule 59 new-trial standard and independent judgment)
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.) (remittitur principles for federal claims)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (Sup. Ct.) (favorable termination requirement discussion for fabricated-evidence claims)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Sup. Ct.) (§1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction are barred)