Crews v. Cnty. of Nassau, 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(GRB)
| Decision Date | 18 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(GRB),06-CV-2610 (JFB)(GRB) |
| Parties | RAHEEM CREWS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF SHAHEEM CREWS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
RAHEEM CREWS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT OF SHAHEEM CREWS, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., Defendants.
No. 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(GRB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
December 18, 2019
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation):
Plaintiff Raheem Crews ("plaintiff") brought this action against the County of Nassau ("Nassau County"), Officer Ronald Annarumma ("Officer Annarumma"), and various other defendants employed by Nassau County (collectively, the "County Defendants"), as well as Detective Nicholas Lemma ("Detective Lemma"), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law, for alleged civil rights violations stemming from his arrest, detention, and prosecution for a robbery he did not commit.
Following discovery and summary judgment motions, the case proceeded to trial on plaintiff's claims against (1) Officer Annarumma for battery, (2) Detective Lemma for malicious prosecution under state and federal law, and (3) Nassau County for municipal liability under Monell and under New York state law in connection with the malicious prosecution claim. The jury found in favor of Officer Annarumma on the battery claim, in favor of Nassau County on the Monell claim, and in favor of plaintiff on the malicious prosecution claims against Detective Lemma. The jury awarded plaintiff $175,000 in compensatory damages against Detective Lemma but did not award punitive damages. Nassau County agreed that it was also liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the compensatory damages awarded against Detective Lemma on the state law malicious prosecution claim.
Presently before the Court are motions for fees and costs filed by plaintiff's former counsel, Arshad Majid, of Majid & Associates, who represented plaintiff from the start of the case in May 2006 until January 2007, and plaintiff's current counsel, the Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington ("the Brewington Law Firm").
Nassau County argues that it is not liable for attorneys' fees or costs because the jury found in its favor on the Monell claim, and because the Nassau County Police Indemnification Board ("the Board")
Page 2
revoked Detective Lemma's indemnification in April 2009 (a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals).
In response, both plaintiff and Detective Lemma argue that Nassau County should indemnify Detective Lemma for any awarded fees and costs under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In addition, Detective Lemma argues that Mr. Majid's application should be denied in its entirety for failure to submit contemporaneous time records or, in the alternative, that any award should be reduced. Detective Lemma also asserts that the Brewington Law Firm's award should be reduced.
As explained below, the Court concludes that Nassau County is not obligated to indemnify Detective Lemma for attorneys' fees and costs. With respect to the award against Detective Lemma, the Court concludes that the fees and costs requested by Mr. Majid and by the Brewington Law Firm should be reduced.
A. Factual Background
The Court set forth the factual background of this case in its February 11, 2014 Order denying in part and granting in part defendants' motions for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, see generally Crews v. County of Nassau, 996 F. Supp. 2d 186 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), and will not repeat that background here.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff, represented by Mr. Majid, filed the complaint on May 25, 2006. On July 21, 2006, the Nassau County Attorney's Office sent Detective Lemma a letter notifying him that he had been named as a defendant in the case, and advising him that he was entitled to legal representation provided by Nassau County and indemnification from Nassau County, provided that the act or omission complained of was within the scope of his duties. On July 28, 2006, the Board found that Detective Lemma was entitled to indemnification for his legal defense under New York General Municipal Law § 50-l.
On December 27, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). See generally Crews v. County of Nassau, No. 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(WDW), 2007 WL 4591325 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2007).
The case proceeded to discovery. As relevant here, during Detective Lemma's February 9, 2009, deposition, he testified that, at some point, he learned that plaintiff was incarcerated on the day of the charged robbery, but failed to notify prosecutors about that exculpatory information. As a result of this new information, Nassau County reconvened the Board. On April 17, 2009, the Board revoked Detective Lemma's indemnification and withdrew representation by the Nassau County Attorney's Office.
The County Defendants moved for summary judgment on July 11, 2011, and Detective Lemma moved for summary judgment on July 20, 2011. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment against Detective Lemma on September 15, 2011. After hearing oral argument on the motions, the Court allowed further discovery and supplemental briefing by the parties, followed by additional oral argument. On February 11, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions by the County Defendants and Detective Lemma, and denied plaintiff's motion.
From March 9 through March 23, 2015, the Court held a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Officer Annarumma and Nassau County on the battery and Monell claims,
Page 3
respectively, and in favor of plaintiff on the malicious prosecution claims against Detective Lemma. The jury awarded plaintiff $175,000 in compensatory damages but did not award any punitive damages.
On May 8, 2015, plaintiff timely moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). The Court denied plaintiff's motion on December 16, 2015. See generally Crews v. County of Nassau, 149 F. Supp. 3d 287 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
On December 30, 2015, the Brewington Law Firm moved for attorneys' fees and costs. On January 14, 2016, Mr. Majid also moved for fees and costs. Nassau County and Detective Lemma opposed the motions on February 12, 2016. On March 4, 2016, the Brewington Law Firm and Mr. Majid submitted replies.
On March 16, 2016, Detective Lemma advised the Court that he wished to move for summary judgment on his crossclaim for indemnification against Nassau County, as it related to attorneys' fees and costs. On May 19, 2016, on consent of the parties, the Court stayed Detective Lemma's time for moving until the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department, decided Detective Lemma's appeal from the dismissal of his Article 78 petition for indemnification from Nassau County. After the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Detective Lemma's Article 78 petition, Detective Lemma requested that the Court continue to stay his time for moving until the New York Court of Appeals heard his appeal. The Court granted that request. On June 14, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision to deny indemnification. See generally Lemma v. Nassau Cty. Police Officer Indemnification Bd., 31 N.Y.3d 523 (2018).
In light of that decision, Detective Lemma advised the Court that there was no basis for a summary judgment motion on his crossclaim for indemnification against Nassau County, but requested permission to submit a statement of his present financial condition for consideration by the Court in connection with the pending application for attorneys' fees and costs against him. The Court granted that request, and Detective Lemma submitted the additional information on August 15, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the Brewington Law Firm responded to that supplemental submission.
On January 22, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the motions for attorneys' fees and costs, and requested additional briefing. On February 12, 2019, Detective Lemma submitted additional briefing, arguing that Nassau County should be equitably estopped from denying indemnification from the date Detective Lemma entered into the representation agreement with Nassau County on July 21, 2006, until it was revoked by the Board on April 17, 2009. In particular, Detective Lemma argued that equitable estoppel should apply because the Nassau County Attorney's Office failed to advise him of the inherent conflict of interest posed by that Office representing him and Nassau County, and because the Nassau County Attorney's Office failed to exercise due diligence in properly investigating the allegations. On February 12, 2019, the Brewington Law Firm submitted a supplemental memorandum of law joining in Detective Lemma's arguments and, on February 14, 2019, Mr. Majid also joined in those arguments. On March 5, 2019, Nassau County submitted a supplemental opposition and, on March 22, 2019, the Brewington Law Firm submitted a reply. Finally, on March 11, 2019, Detective Lemma submitted updated financial information to the Court. The Court has fully considered the parties' submissions and arguments.
Page 4
As noted earlier, presently before the Court are applications for attorneys' fees and costs submitted by both Mr. Majid and the Brewington Law Firm. Mr. Majid requests $186,937.50 in fees and $2,351.97 in costs. The Brewington Law Firm requests $411,841.75 in fees and $19,357.60 in costs.
As a threshold matter, Detective Lemma and plaintiff argue that Nassau County should indemnify Detective Lemma in connection with any award of attorneys' fees or costs against him. Moreover, Detective Lemma argues that the Court should deny Mr. Majid's fee request in its entirety, and substantially reduce the Brewington Law Firm's fees, on several grounds. One of the grounds for the reduction of an award raised by Detective Lemma is his financial situation. The Court addresses each of these issues in turn.
A. Indemnification
...
To continue reading
Request your trial