MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plаintiff Deryck Harewood brought this action against the City of New York (the “City”), New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) Detective Michael Braithwaite and an unidentified NYPD officer (“John Doe”), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), the New York State Constitution, and New York common law. After Plaintiffs claims against the City and John Doe were dismissed, trial proceeded against Braithwaite on Plaintiffs claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and unreasonable detention. After a six-day trial, the jury determined that Braithwaite had falsely arrested and unreasonably detained Harewood, and awarded Harewood $25,000 in compensatory damages. In addition, the jury awarded punitive damages against Braithwaite in the amount of $20,000 on Harewood’s false arrest claim and an additional $20,000 on his unreasonable detention claim. Braithwaite now moves, with respect to each claim, (1) for judgment as a matter óf law on the issues of liability and qualified immunity pursuant to Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) or, in the alternative, (2) for a new triаl pursuant to FRCP Rule 59 or to vacate the punitive damages award. For .the reasons
BACKGROUND
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the procedural history of this case and the trial record, and discusses them only to the extent they are relevant to the resolution of the instant motions.
I. History of the Case
Plaintiffs claims arise out of his June 11, 2007 arrest by Braithwaite and the subsequent no true bill vote by the Grand Jury. (See Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”).) On July 9, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this action under § 1983 and State law, asserting claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and unreаsonable detention against the City, Braith-waite, and John Doe. (Id.)
On July 12, 2011, defendants the City of New York, Braithwaite, and John Doe moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. 29.) In a Memorandum and Order dated February 10, 2012, the Honorable Frederic. Block, then-presiding,
Braithwaite filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity on all three § 1983 claims. Harewood,
After a series of motions and extension requests, trial began on December 2, 2013.
II. Evidence at Trial
A. Factual Overview
On May 17, 2007, at approximately 2:13 p.m., a 23-year old male named Raphael Maximin was stabbed in the vicinity of East 95th Street near Rutland Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. (JT
Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 9,2009. (Compl.)
B. ' Plaintiffs Evidence
1. The Stabbing & Hans Holder’s Witness Statement
On May 17, 2007, prior to the stabbing, Maximin was at the apartment of a Ms. Lawner, which was a second floor apartment located at 1028 Rutland Road, Brooklyn, New York. (PX-3.
At that time, Holder ran downstairs to the corner of East 95th Street and Rutland Road. He looked south and saw that a short distance down East 95th Street, three males were engaged in a fight with Maximin. (PX-3; Tr. 40.) Two of the assailants were holding Maximin down and one was standing above him. (PX-3.) In his May 17, 2007 interview with Braith-waite, Holder described the males as follows:
• Male # 1 (Holding victim down) Black, 5'6", 120 lbs, mid 20’s, yellow shirt, dark short pants, and was saying, “Who was it?”
• Male # 2 (Holding victim down) Black, 6'0", 250 lbs, late 20’s, white shirt, blue jeans.
• Male # 3 (Standing) Black, late 20’s, no further description.
(PX-3; Tr. 39-40.)
2. Beverly Creary’s Witness Statement
On May 17, 2004, at 3:40 p.m., Beverly Creary and her sister, Joset Dell, who worked near the intersection where the incident had taken place, were interviewed by NYPD Detective Dennis Murphy, a colleague of Braithwaite. Creary and Dell both prоvided recorded statements to Murphy. (PX-2; Tr. 41-43, 465.)
According to Murphy’s report, Creary, with some input from Dell, told Murphy that:
• she witnessed “the victim fighting with 3 other boys,” i.e., the assailants;
• “the victim’s best friend who is always with him was standing there at the time watching and doing nothing”;
• she recognized the assailants, whom she referred to as “the boys” because “the boys [were] always hanging out smoking weed” in that particular spot;
• she “thought that [the boys] were play fighting” but “realized it was serious when she saw the victim bleeding and saw the 1 male with a small knife in his hand [and] he was in a punch like movement into the victim[’]s stomach area.... the other 2 boys with him [were] punching the victim and kicking him”;
• with respect to identifying the assailants, “the 1 with the knife was approx. 6' to 6'2" wearing a blue shirt but that he took it off when he left and had a second white sjhirt on.... he had blood on his pants blue jeans and knew it was blood because she could see the wet stain on them”;
• “the second boy was wearing [b]rown jeans and a brown shirt and he was covered in blood on his shirt and pants”; and
• she could identify the perpetrators.
(PX-2; Tr. 41-43.)
3. The Photo Arrays
’ On May 17, 2007, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Holder was brought to the 67th Precinct to view phоtos from the Photo Manager database in an effort to identify the
One week later, on May 24, 2007, Braith-waite interviewed Creary, at the 67th Precinct. (PX-5; Tr. 47.) Braithwaite showed Creary a stack of photographs of men who had previously been arrested at or near the intersection where the stabbing had occurred. (Tr. 199-200.) An arrest photograph of Harewood was included in the array because on February 10, 2007, a little more than one month prior to Maxi-min’s stabbing, Harewood was arrested in Brooklyn within the jurisdiction of the 67th Precinct for alleged possession of marijuana. (Id.) The arrest photograph was accompanied by certain personal data, ie., that Harewood was 42 years old, 5'6" tall, and weighed 150 pounds at that time. (PX-6.) Creary identified Harewood’s photograph as the suspect she had described to Murphy as the “tall black male who was wearing a brown hooded sweatshirt and brown pants whom she observed making a punching motion to the victim’s stomach.” (Tr. 49-50.) Braithwaite never disclosed to Creary that Harewood was 42 years old, 5'6" or 150 pounds. (Tr. 52.)
Later that day, May 24, 2007, Braith-waite transported Creary to the Kings County District Attorney’s Office where she was audiotaped by Assistant District Attorney John Gianotti, and the following exchange occurred:
[Gianotti]: “So the man in brown, do you see a knife in his hand when he’s stabbing or punching in the guy’s chest?”
[Creary]: “I just see him punching. I didn’t actually see the knife until thе blue, the one in the blue I saw the knife.”
(Tr. 57.)
4. Harewood’s June 11, 2007 Arrest
On June 11, 2007, Braithwaite arrested Harewood at his home without a warrant. (Tr. 75, 161; JT ¶ 1.) Braithwaite then transported Harewood to the 67th Precinct police station where he handcuffed Hare-wood to a pole and interrogated him for several hours. (Tr. 351-52.) During the course of that interrogation, Harewood told Braithwaite, among other things, that on May 17, 2007, Harewood was working for Paul Gibbs at a construction company located at 501 Midwood Street, Brooklyn, New York, about 15 blocks from the place where the stabbing had taken place. (Tr. 353, 366.) Harewood provided Braithwaite Gibbs’s name, address and phone number. (Id.) Harewood further told Braithwaite that he had nothing to do with Maximin’s stabbing and that Braithwaite made a “mistake” by arresting him. (Tr. 359-360.) Harewood testified at trial that he was not near the sité of the stabbing on May 17, 2007, and that he did not know Maximin or any other person involved in the stabbing. (Tr. 365, 408-09.)
5. Postr-Arrest Lineup
Following the interrogation of Hare-wood, Braithwaite impaneled a lineup in which Creary had the opportunity to iden
C. The Defendant’s Evidence
Maximin’s stabbing occurred in the middle of the afternoon on May 17, 2007. (JT ¶ 11.) The attack took place directly in front of Beverly Creary’s store, where she was present, had a clear view, and witnessed the attack from a close distance. (PX-2; Tr. 423, 431.) Shortly after the attack, Detective Murphy interviewed her. She told him that she was familiar with the victim and his three attackers from seeing them almost daily in a group that smoked marijuana just across the street from her store. (PX-2; Tr. 427.) Creary and/or her sister, Dell, told the police that some of the attackers may have been arrested in the area recently. (PX-2.) Creary told the police that she could identify the attackers. (PX-2; Tr. 189-190.)
Despite expressing concerns over her safety, on May 24, 2007, Creary met with Braithwaite at the 67th Precinct. (PX-2, 5; Tr. 192-193, 432, 433, 441-442.) She correctly identified a photograph of the victim. (PX-5; Tr. 199.) Detective Braithwaite showed Ms. Creary a stack of photographs of men arrested near the intersection of the crime scene. (PX-5; Tr. 201.) From that stack, she identified a photograph of Harewood as the man she had described as having made a punching motion to the victim’s stomach, a motion which' she subsequently realized — upon peeing him hand off a knife to another attacker — were actually multiple stabbing motions. (PX-5; Tr. 47-48, 50, 199, 201-02, 441, 445.)
Ms. Creary then agreed to accompany Braithwaite to the District Attorney’s Officе, where she made a sworn, audio-recorded statement to the District Attorney’s office. (PX-7; DX-D; Tr. 46, 203, 437-438.) Based on Creary’s photo identification and sworn statement, Detective Braithwaite arrested Harewood on June 11,2007. (JT111.)
Following his arrest, Harewood told Braithwaite that he did not frequent the area of the crime scene. (PX-10; Tr. 225.) Braithwaite believed, however, that Hare-wood was lying to him because Harewood had been arrested in that very location just three months earlier, and had reported being there soon after the crime and seeing the yellow crime-scene tape from the stabbing. (PX-6; PX-10; Tr. 225, 384-85.) Harewood then told Braithwaite that an associate of his, Paul Gibbs, would vouch for his whereabouts on the day of the stabbing approximately three weeks earlier. (Tr. 269-70, 370, 373.) At trial, Harewood offered as evidence of that alibi only his own testimony that he was at work for his friend Gibbs that day, that he worked part-time, and that his place of employment was approximately 15 blocks from the crime scеne. (Tr. at 346, 353, 366, 370-71, 394.)
III. The Jury’s Verdict
A. Liability & Damages
On December 6, 2013, at the termination of the liability portion of trial, the jury
On December 9, 2013, following the damages portion of trial, the jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Harewood was entitled to $25,000 in compensatory damages. Because the jury found that Plaintiff suffered the same injury pursuant to his False Arrest and Unreasonable Detention claims, the jury was not required to state what portion of the $25,000 compensatory was attributable to the false arrest and what portion was attributable to the unreasonable detention. (See Dkt. 124-15 (“Ct. Ex. 16”), ECF 1-2.)
B. Qualified, Immunity & the Special ■ Verdict Sheet
Following the procedure outlined by the Second Circuit, the Court presented the questions of liability to the jury, and reserved the question of qualified immunity for the Court to decide post-trial if there was a verdict in Plaintiffs favor. (Tr. 453-54, 747, 844-45, 854, 982);
DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for judgment as matter of law
I. Relevant Legal Standards
A. Rule 50 Standard of Review
Rule 50 “generally imposes a heavy burden on a movant, who .will be
In addition, where, as here, “the jury has deliberated in the case and actually returned its verdict in favor of the nonmovant,” the moving party’s burden is especially heavy. Cash,
B. Qualified Immunity Standards
Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Pearson v. Callahan,
A court should review the facts that are material to the qualified immunity issue, as resolved by the jury, to determine whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Zellner, 494 F.3d at
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that a defendant bears the burden of proving. Harlow,
II. False Arrest
Braithwaite argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs false arrest verdict because no reasonable juror could find that Braithwaite lacked probable cause to arrest Harewood. (Dkt. 143 (“Def. Br.”) at 6.) Similarly, Braith-waite argues that he is entitled to qualifiеd immunity because no reasonable officer in his position would have believed that arresting Harewood would violate Hare-wood’s Fourth Amendment right.
A. False Arrest Standards
“A § 1983 claim for false arrest, resting on the Fourth Amendment right of an individual to be free from unreasonable seizures, including arrest without probable cause, is substantially the same as a claim for false arrest under New York law.” Weyant v. Okst,
In typical false arrest cases, “[t]he existence of probable cause to arrest constitutes justification and ‘is a complete defense to an action for false arrest,’ whether that action is brought under state law or under § 1983.” Jenkins v. City of New York,
B. Liability — False Arrest
Braithwaite argues that he had probable cause to arrest Harewood, and therefore he did not violate Harewood’s Fourth Amendment right. See Weyant,
Braithwaite is correct that a photo identification is generally sufficient to establish probable cause. See, e.g., Celestin v. City of New York,
At trial, Plaintiff presented myriad evidence and argumеnt to support his position that Creary’s identification, in light of the surrounding circumstances, did not provide probable cause for Harewood’s arrest. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Harewood, Harewood did not fit the description of the perpetrator that Creary gave to the police immediately after the incident. Specifically, Creary described the stabber as six to eight inches taller than Harewood’s height. Further, Harewood was 42 years old, but Creary referred to the perpetrators as “boys,” and the other eyewitness, Holder, described the perpetrators as “in their 20s.” (Ct. Ex. 19 ¶ 16.) As discussed further below, the jury found that Creary was neither credible (Id. ¶ 17) nor reliable (Id. ¶ 18) when she identified Harewood. Given these two findings, among other things, the jury concluded that Braithwaite did not have reason to believe that Harewood participated in the attack of Maximin at the time Braithwaite arrested Harewood (Id. ¶20), and thus the arrest was not supported by probable cause.
In addition, given the jury’s finding that Creary’s identifiсation of Harewood was not credible, a reasonable juror also could have been troubled by Braithwaite’s failure to ask Creary to clarify the inconsis
In light of the above, the Court cannot conclude, deferring, as it must, to the “credibility determinations and reasonable inferences of the jury,”
C. Qualified Immunity — False Arrest
In determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, a court employs a two-pronged analysis that asks (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Pearson,
Braithwaite first argues that no officer would have believed that arresting a suspect based on an unbiased eyewitness’s identification violated a constitutional right. However, Braithwaite has misidentified the right at issue, which is the clearly established right to be free from arrest absent probable cause, not some more specific right to be free from arrest in the face of an unbiased witness identification. Finding a right clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity “do[es] not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the ... constitutional question beyond de
Second, similar to his argument with respect to liability, Braithwaite contends that he had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Harewood because Creary identified Harewood as the perpetrator of the underlying crime. As an initial point, context matters. Braithwaite’s decision to arrest Harewood was not instantaneously made under tense circumstances. Given the three-week gap between the commencement of the investigation and Hare-wood’s arrest, the rationale supporting qualified immunity is at its lowest ebb. See Lennon,
As discussed above, the jury found that Harewood did not look like he could have been in his 20s or late 20s at the time of the arrest. (Ct. Ex. 19 ¶ 10.) In addition, the jury found that, prior to arresting Harewood, Braithwaite had reason to believe that Creary’s photographic identification of Harewood was inaccurate. (Id. ¶ 16.) The jury further found that Creary was neither credible (Id. ¶ 17) nor reliable (Id. ¶ 18) when she identified Harewood. The jury ultimately concluded that Braith-waite did not have reason to believe that Harewood participated in the attack of Maximin at the time Braithwaite chose to arrest Harewood. (Id. ¶ 20.)
Because the jury’s responses to the special interrogatories do not lack evidentiary support, the Court gives full dеference to them as “credibility determinations and reasonable inferences of the jury.” Brady,
III. Unreasonable Detention
Braithwaite argues that he is entitled to judgment on Harеwood’s unreasonable detention claim as a matter of law with respect to both liability and qualified immunity. At trial, Harewood’s unreasonable detention claim appeared to be premised both on Braithwaite’s failure to investigate Harewood’s alleged alibi and Braithwaite’s improper influencing of Creary’s post-arrest line-up identification of Harewood.
A. Elements of an Unreasonable Detention Claim
The Second Circuit has found that an unreasonable claim may arise where a police officer fails “to investigate specific, readily-verifiable claims of innocence [made by a detained arrestee] in a reasonable time period.” Russo v. City of Bridgeport,
B. Liability — Unreasonable Detention
The touchstone of an unreasonable detention claim is the existence of egregious conduct by an officer in connection with specific, readily-accessible, exculpatory evidence. At trial, Harewood did not prove that there was objective, readily-verifiable, exculpatory evidence in Braithwaite’s possession that would have established Harewood’s innocence and shortened his detention.
1. Failure to Investigate Plaintiffs Alibi
With respect to the alibi theory, the only exculpatory evidence that Hare-wood introduced at trial was his own testimony that he was at work on May 17, 2007. Harewood did not specify the time period during which he was allegedly at work, and testified at trial that his job was “part time” and only “[a]bout 15 blocks” from the crime scene. (Tr. 346/366, 394.) He also testified that he was “working for a friend.” (Tr. 353.)
By contrast, in Russo, the defendant-officers, during the underlying investigation, hid the only copy of a video surveillance tape that clearly showed that the perpetrator of the robbery in question did not have tattoos on his arms. Russo, whom the police had arrested for the robbery, had arms covered with distinctive tattoos, and repeatedly told the officers that the subject video would demonstrate his innocence. The defendant-officers failed to turn over the exculpatory evidence to either the prosecutor or the defense for a period of over 200 days. The police not only ignored this evidence, but also lied about both having viewed the video and its contents, falsely insisting that it showed a man with tattoos like Russo’s. The Circuit held that criminal defendants have a right “to be free from prolonged detention caused by law enforcement officials’ mishandling or suppression of exculpatory evidence in a manner which shоcks
Here, the alibi evidence in question was, at most, only arguably exculpatory and was not in Braithwaite’s exclusive possession. At trial, there were no allegations that Braithwaite tampered with or suppressed the alibi evidence. Russo,
A failure to investigate evidence that is only arguably exculpatory does not shock the conscience. See, e.g., Wilson,
2. Improper Line-Up Procedure
Plaintiff also argues that his unreasonable detention claim was supported by Braithwaite having improperly influenced Creary’s line-up identification of Hare-wood. (PI. Br. at 25.) There is no doubt that the jury was distressed by the in-person lineup conducted by Braithwaite on June 11, 2007 (Ct. Ex. 19, ¶¶21, 22, 24), and appears to have found that his conduct with respect to the line-up “shocked the conscience” as a result. But this finding does not support a verdict on the unreasonable detention claim. As reprehensible as the jury may have found Braithwaite’s conduct, such conduct can only support a due process violation, not a Fourth Amendment excessive detention claim. Wray v. City of New York,
IV. Rule 59 — New Trial
Anticipating success with respect to the unreasonable detention claim, Braithwaite submits that, the Court having disposed of such claim, Defendant is entitled to a new trial because “Plaintiffs arguments at trial on the Russo claim were prejudicial and irrelevant to the false arrest claim yet tainted the jury’s verdict on that claim.” (Def. Br. at 20.)
Under Rule 59(a) of the FRCP, “[t]he court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues— and to any party ... after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.” FRCP 59(a). In contrast to the standards governing a Rule 50 motion, a court “may weigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses and need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner” when considering a Rule 59 motion. Raedle v. Credit Agricole Indosuez,
Moreover, challenges to arguments by counsel are subject only to deferential review. Patterson v. Balsamico,
Defendant has not specified which statements by Plaintiffs counsel he deems improper. Rather, Defendant makes the global argument that Plaintiffs counsel admitted to the Court. — outside the presence of the jury — that Plaintiff presented evidence pertaining to the suggestive lineup .“to the jury to support his Russo claim, not just his malicious prosecution claim.” (Def. Br. 20.) Plaintiff was, of course, entitled to presеnt evidence regarding the suggestive lineup, as it was central to his claim for malicious prosecution. The fact
V. Punitive Damages
Defendant argues that Court should vacate Plaintiffs punitive damages award in connection with his false arrest claim because the award is inconsistent with the Jury’s special interrogatory findings. Specifically, Braithwaite points to the following findings of the jury: Braithwaite (1) did not intentionally rig Creаry’s initial photo array, (2) subjectively believed Creary’s photo identification was accurate, and (3) subjectively believed that Hare-wood participated in the underlying crime. (Ct. Ex. 19 ¶¶ 11, 15, 19.) However, these findings do not necessarily conflict with a finding that Braithwaite acted with “reckless disregard or indifference” to Hare-wood’s right to be free from false arrest. As discussed above, the jury found that Creary was neither credible nor reliable when she identified Harewood. Given these two findings, among other things, the jury concluded that Braithwaite did not have reason to believe that Harewood participated in the attack of Maximin at the time of his arrest, and thus the arrest was not supported by probable cause. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18, 20.) In other words, for all of the reasons discussed the jury could have found, consistent with the special interrogatory findings upon which Braithwaite relies, that Braithwaite recklessly disregarded or was indifferent to the evidence demonstrating, or tending to demonstrate, that Braithwaite did not have probable cause to arrest Harewood. See Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Eller-man Lines, Ltd.,
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons: Defendant’s Rule 50 motion is denied with respect to Harewood’s false arrest verdict, but is granted as to Harewood’s unreasonable detention verdict. Because Harewood suffered the same injuries from his false arrest and unreasonable detention claims, he only recovered a single compensatory amount for both, and thus his $25,000 compensatory damages award shall not be altered. Plaintiffs $20,000 punitive damages award in connection with his false arrest claim stands. However," because Defendant’s motion is granted as to Plaintiffs unreasonable detention claim, the $20,000 punitive damages award in connection with that claim is overturned. Thus, Plaintiff will recover a total of $45,000, based on the jury’s favorable verdict on his false arrest claim, plus applicable post-judgment interest running from the date judgment is entered. Defendant’s Rule 59 mоtion for a new trial and his motion to vacate the punitive damages award as to the false arrest verdict are denied.
The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. This case was reassigned to the undersigned on April 18, 2013.
. Harewood’s claims against the John Doe Officer were dismissed because Harewood made no attempt to learn John Doe’s identity during discoveiy- (Dkt. 39 ("SJ. Op.”) at 3-49 The Court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on Harewood’s Monell claim because Harewood failed to allege that any municipal policy or practice caused his constitutional rights to be violated. (Id. at 4.)
.The following is a brief procedural history of this case. The parties filed their proposed pretrial order on April 19, 2013. Thereafter, the City, as part of its Public Service Program, retained outside pro bono counsel to represent Braithwaite in this matter. (Dkt. 49.) The Court held a pretrial conference on May 22, 2013. There, the parties jointly agreed to reopen discovery to exchange expert discovery and conduct purportedly key depositions that had not been taken previously. Following a series of motions, including Plaintiff's motion to unseal the Grand Jury minutes from his underlying criminal case and Defendant's motion to compel depositions and for Harewood's tax returns, the Court resolved the parties' final motions in limine on the record at the September 13, 2013 pre-trial conference, as supplemented by the Court’s September 23, 2013 Memorandum and Order. See Harewood v. Braithwaite, 09-CV-2874 (PKC)(RML),
. "JT” refers to the parties’ joint stipulation of facts entered into evidence at trial. It is located at Dkt. 124-20.
. “DX” refers to Defendant's Trial Exhibits.
. "PX” refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits.
. There is no evidence that Shawn Braith-waite is related to Defendant.
. "Tr.” refers to the trial transcript, which is located at Dkt. 126-130.
. Both Braithwaite and Creary testified at trial. (Tr. 35-126, 182-344 (Braithwaite); 421-544 (Creary).)
. Citations to "ECF” pages refer to the page numbering of the Electronic Court Filing ("ECF”) system, and not the document’s internal page numbers.
. Plaintiff's procedural argument that Defendant waived his qualified immunity defense by not specifically referring to it in his oral Rule 50(a) motion is unavailing. The parties had previously agreed that the Court would not charge the jury on qualified immunity before its initial deliberations, and would present the special interrogatories if and when the jury rendered a verdict against Defendant. Because, as discussed in the corresponding text above, this procedure is explicitly endorsed by the Second Circuit, Defendant has not waived his right to raise a qualified immunity defense post-trial. See also, e.g., Guzman v. Jay,
.Braithwaite previously moved for judgment as a matter of law during the trial proceedings. (Tr. 418-19, 585-86, 596.)
. The Court notes that it provided Defendant ample opportunity to submit and discuss his proposed special interrogatories with the Court, of which the Defendant took full advantage. Indeed, Defendant does not now argue that additional or different questions would alter the result. In any event, the Court took care to present all of Defendant's questions that would allow the jury to resolve "key factual disputes” bearing on the legal determination of qualified immunity. Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. Breen,
. Indeed, the jury had substantial opportunity to assess the credibility of both Creary and Braithwaite during their extensive testimony at trial. (See Tr. at 35-126, 182-344 (Braith-waite); 421-544 (Creary).)
. Plaintiff points out that on interlocutory appeal in this case, the Second Circuit wrote, "[Harewood] argues that Braithwaite deliberately sought to bias Creary’s identification which, if true, seriously undermines Braith-waite’s contention that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim because he reasonably relied on Creary's identification.” Harewood, v.
. Post-trial, perhaps due to a lack of supporting evidence on the alibi theory, Plaintiff focuses almost exclusively on the improper line-up procedure to support the verdict with respect to his unreasonable detention claim, arguing that "officers of reasonable competence could not disagree that it was illegal for Braithwaite to improperly influence Creary’s line-up identification of Harewood.” (Dkt. 145 ("PL Br.”) at 25; accord 39-40 (regarding liability).)
. Prior to trial, the Court granted Braith-waite’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Harewood’s boss, Gibbs, whose name Harewood had given to Braithwaite to corroborate Harewood’s alibi, on the basis that Gibbs had refused to appear for a deposition in this case. See Harewood,
. With respect to liability, Defendant also argues that Plaintiff introduced no evidence that the length of his incarceration was unreasonably prolonged given that he was released within 5 days of his arrest, after the Grand Jury failed to indict him. Though that may be true, given the Court's findings, it need not determine whether such a detention
. Although unnecessary in light of the Court's finding that the evidence offered in support of Plaintiff's unreasonable detention claim was legally insufficient, the Court also finds that Braithwaite is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to that claim for substantially the same reasons as discussed. See Wilson,