Chamberlain v. City of Hous.
Decision Date | 10 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 12–CV–5142 (CS).,12–CV–5142 (CS). |
Citation | 986 F.Supp.2d 363 |
Parties | Kenneth CHAMBERLAIN, Jr., as the Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, White Plains Housing Authority, Police Officer Anthony Carelli, Police Officer Steven Hart, Police Officer Maurice Love, Police Officer Steven Demchuk, Police Officer Marek Markowski, Sergeant Stephen Fottrell, Sergeant Keith Martin, and Lieutenant James Spencer, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Randolph M. McLaughlin, Debra S. Cohen, Jeffrey M. Norton, Newman Ferrara LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Peter A. Meisels, John M. Flannery, Lalit K. Loomba, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains, NY, for Defendants City of White Plains, Love, Demchuk, Markowski, Fottrell, Martin, and Spencer.
Lance H. Klein, Jaclyn G. Bernstein, Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains, NY, for Defendant White Plains Housing Authority.
Albert W. Cornachio III, Pappalardo & Pappalardo, LLP, Rye Brook, NY, Counsel for Defendant Hart.
Andrew C. Quinn, The Quinn Law Firm, PLLC, White Plains, NY, for Defendant Carelli.
Before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss of Defendants City of White Plains (the “City”), Police Officers Maurice Love, Steven Demchuk, and Marek Markowski, Sergeants Stephen Fottrell and Keith Martin, and Lieutenant James Spencer (collectively, the “City Defendants”), (Doc. 45), Defendant White Plains Housing Authority (“WPHA”), (Doc. 58), Defendant Police Officer Anthony Carelli, (Doc. 65), and Defendant Police Officer Steven Hart, (Doc. 62). For the reasons set forth below, the City Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, WPHA's Motion is GRANTED, Carelli's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Hart's Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
For the purposes of the instant Motions to Dismiss, I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, as set forth in the Amended Complaint (“Complaint” or “AC”), (Doc. 36), and accompanying audio and video recordings of the incident in question.1
On the morning of November 19, 2011, Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr. (“Chamberlain”) was in his apartment at 135 South Lexington Ave., part of the Winbrook Houses development, in White Plains, New York. (AC ¶ 10.) Chamberlain, a 68–year–old man with serious health problems, had a “Life Aid” medical alert device that was monitored around the clock. ( Id. ¶¶ 10–11.) At approximately 5:00 a.m., Chamberlain's alert device was accidentally triggered, sending a notification to the Life Aid monitoring center and activating a two-way communication device in his apartment that immediately began recording communications between the monitoring center and the apartment. ( Chamberlain can be heard in the background stating, (Life Aid Transcript 1.) When Chamberlain did not respond to the Life Aid operator over the communication device, Life Aid contacted the White Plains Department of Public Safety (“WPDPS”) to report the unanswered medical alert, and an ambulance was dispatched along with Defendant Love. (AC ¶¶ 13–15.) Upon running a computer check on Chamberlain and his home address, the WPDPS dispatch officer learned that there had been several “emotionally disturbed person calls” involving Chamberlain and his address, and he dispatched Defendants Markowski and Martin to join Love at the scene, advising the responding officers of the possibility of encountering an emotionally disturbed person (“EDP”). ( Id. ¶ 16.)
Chamberlain refused entry to the responding officers and paramedics, telling them through his door that he had not called for them and was not in need of assistance. ( Nevertheless, the officers banged on the door,2 demanding that Chamberlain admit them because they had to visually confirm that he was not in need of assistance. ( The Life Aid operator established contact with Chamberlain, and repeatedly advised him to open the door for the police so that they could confirm he was all right. (Life Aid Transcript 4–5.) Chamberlain steadfastly refused, stating, ( Id.)
After Chamberlain's continued refusal to open the door, Martin contacted Defendant Spencer, the ranking officer at police headquarters, and requested that tactical officers respond to the scene. (AC ¶¶ 17, 22.) Spencer dispatched Defendants Carelli, Demchuk, Fottrell, and Hart, directing them to take tactical gear with them. ( Carelli and Hart were part of the Neighborhood Conditions Unit, a tactical unit of the White Plains Police Department assigned to patrol the area including the Winbrook Houses. ( Id. ¶¶ 23–24.) WPHA, the municipal agency responsible for the Winbrook Houses, had previously provided the Neighborhood Conditions Unit with a master key to that complex, affording the police the ability to access apartments when necessary without resorting to forced entry. ( In addition to this master key, the officers outside Chamberlain's apartment were now equipped with an axe, a Halligan tool (similar to a crowbar), pepper spray, a riot shield, Tasers, a beanbag shotgun, and their standard sidearms. ( Id. ¶ 21.)
The encounter between Chamberlain and the police continued to be recorded by the Life Aid communication device in Chamberlain's apartment, even as the Life Aid operator repeatedly urged him to open the door so the police could see that no one was in need of medical attention. ( Id. ¶¶ 29–31.) Chamberlain repeatedly stated to the police and the Life Aid operator that he had not activated his alert device and that he was fine and wanted the police to leave, and so the Life Aid operator called WPDPS again in an attempt to cancel the medical alert. ( The police refused to abide by Life Aid's request to cancel the call and informed the Life Aid operator that they intended to enter the apartment using the master key. Either Hart or Martin used the key to open the door to Chamberlain's apartment, but Chamberlain had engaged his safety chain lock that prevented the officers from opening the door more than a few inches. (AC ¶¶ 41.) 3 Martin wedged the Halligan tool through the partially open door to keep it ajar. ( Id. ¶ 42.)
Life Aid was able to make contact with Chamberlain's sister Carol Matthew, his emergency contact, who informed the operator that her daughter Tonyia Greenhill,4 Chamberlain's niece, lived in the same building. ( Id. ¶ 35.) While on the phone with the Life Aid operator, Matthew called Greenhill, who went to Chamberlain's door. (Life Aid Transcript 11–12.) The officers would not allow Greenhill to speak to Chamberlain, (AC ¶¶ 36–37), but Greenhill told her mother and the Life Aid operator that “Uncle Kenny is going crazy in there ... he's talking like real crazy out of his head,” (Life Aid Transcript 11). Greenhill handed her cell phone to Officer Carelli, and Matthew informed him that Chamberlain “does have a mental problem,” to which Carelli responded, “Ok, yeah, that's what we kinda wanna check out we just wanna make sure he's ok.” ( Id.) Later, the Life Aid operator speaks to Matthew again, who states that “he's on medication ... psychiatric medication.” ( Id. at 37–38.)
As the confrontation continued for more than an hour, the Life Aid recordings capture how Chamberlain became increasingly agitated, having multiple delusions or hallucinations. (AC ¶¶ 38, 45.) At one point Chamberlain stated, (Life Aid Transcript 15.) The officers are alleged to have continued to speak loudly and threateningly to Chamberlain through the door, mocking him, disrespecting him, and using at least one racial slur. (AC ¶¶ 39–40.) 5 The recordings indicate that Chamberlain made several threats to the officers outside his door. ( See Life Aid Transcript 15 () ; id. at 16 (); id. at 17 (); id. at 22 () ; id. at 35 ().)
Martin kicked the door several times without succeeding at breaking it open. (AC ¶ 42.) During this time, Chamberlain was continuing to hallucinate and threaten the officers, stating, (Life Aid Transcript 21–23; see also id. at 25–26 () ; id. at 31 ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. City of New York
...claim against Officer Ramos would be subject to the same analysis as the assault-and-battery claim. Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 986 F. Supp. 2d 363, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("With the exception of the state actor requirement, the elements of a Section 1983 excessive force claim and [N......
-
I.S. v. Binghamton City Sch. Dist.
...alternatives, rather than negligence or bureaucratic inaction.’ " Felix , 344 F. Supp. 3d at 660 (quoting Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 986 F. Supp. 2d 363, 393 [S.D.N.Y. 2013] ). A "complaint must also allege that ‘the need for more or better supervision ... was obvious,’ but that ......
-
Edrei v. City of N.Y.
...choice by the city employee will frequently cause the deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights." Chamberlain v. City of White Plains, 986 F.Supp.2d 363, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Walker v. City of N.Y., 974 F.2d 293, 297–98 (2d Cir. 1992) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[D......
-
Lloyd v. City of N.Y.
...Section 1983 excessive force claim and state law assault and battery claims are substantially identical." Chamberlain v. City of White Plains , 986 F.Supp.2d 363, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Posr v. Doherty , 944 F.2d 91, 94–95 (2d Cir. 1991)) ; see also Kramer v. City of New York , no. 04–......
-
Rethinking Police Expertise.
...384, 395-96 (6th Cir. 2016); United States v. Greene, 927 F-3d 723, 726 (3d Cir. 2019). (37.) Chamberlain v. City of White Plains, 986 F. Supp. 2d 363, 381 (S.D.N.Y. (38.) State v. Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030, f 29, 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19. (39.) Appellants' Brief and Addendum at 23, Craighe......