Graham v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 10 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 08–CV–3518 (MKB).,08–CV–3518 (MKB).
• Citation: 128 F.Supp.3d 681
• Parties: Robert GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, William Glenn and Andrew Ugbomah, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

128 F.Supp.3d 681

Robert GRAHAM, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, William Glenn and Andrew Ugbomah, Defendants.

No. 08–CV–3518 (MKB).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 10, 2015.

Brett H. Klein, Lissa Strata Green–Stark, Leventhal & Klein, LLP, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth M. Daitz, Max Oliver McCann, Brian Francolla, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Robert Graham and his son, J.G., filed the above-captioned action on August 27, 2008, alleging that the City of New York and New York City Police Department ("NYPD") officers violated their constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and committed the state torts of assault, battery, intentional inflict of emotional distress, false arrest, abuse of process, and various forms of negligence. (Docket Entry No. 1.) In a Second Amended Complaint filed on August 28, 2009, Defendants William Glenn and Andrew Ugbomah were personally named. (Docket Entry No. 18.) By Memorandum and Order dated August 17, 2011, United States District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto¹ granted Defendants partial summary judgment as to all of J.G.'s claims. (Docket Entry No. 52.) By Memorandum and Order dated March 6, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Ugbomah summary judgment on Plaintiff's assault and battery claims, and denied Defendants summary judgment on all other claims. (Docket Entry No. 71.) On August 11, 2014, the Court commenced a jury trial on Plaintiff's remaining claims that (1) Glenn falsely arrested Plaintiff in violation of Section 1983 and state law, and Ugbomah failed to intervene; (2) Glenn used excessive force against Plaintiff, and Ugbomah failed to intervene; (3) Glenn subjected Plaintiff to assault; (4) Glenn subjected Plaintiff to battery; and (5) the City of New York is liable for Plaintiff's state law claims under the respondeat superior doctrine.

At the conclusion of trial, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law. The Court reserved judgment and submitted the case to the jury for deliberations. (Minute Entry dated August 13, 2014.) The jury deliberated and returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff as to his false arrest claim against Glenn and corresponding failure to intervene claim against Ugbomah, and in favor of Defendants on all other claims. (Docket Entry No. 100.) The jury awarded Plaintiff $150,000 in compensatory damages. (Id. ) Defendants now renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, move for a new trial. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) and motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 are denied.

I. Background

a. Factual background

The Court assumes familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case as set forth in earlier decisions concerning this matter. See Graham v. City of New York, 928 F.Supp.2d 610 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (granting in part and denying in part motion for summary judgment); Graham v. City of New York, No. 08–CV–3518, 2011 WL 3625074 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2011) (granting motion for partial summary judgment as to J.G.'s claims); Graham v. City of New York, No. 08–CV–3518, 2010 WL 3034618 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2010) (overruling Magistrate Judge's grant of plaintiffs' motion for protective order, denying motion for a protective order). The Court briefly summarizes the testimony as presented at trial.

On June 8, 2007, at approximately 5:30 PM, Plaintiff and his four-year old son, J.G., were in their vehicle on Church Avenue, near the intersection of East 96th Street in Brooklyn, New York. (Tr. 310:14–311:22.) Defendant police officers Glenn and Ugbomah were in their marked police vehicle on Church Avenue, attempting to respond to a 9–1–1 call regarding an emergency at Church Avenue and Rockaway Parkway, one block from Plaintiff's location. (Tr. 65:22–67:11.) As the officers' vehicle approached the intersection of Church Avenue and East 96th Street, they did not have their lights or sirens on. (Tr. 68:18–69:16.) Glenn and Ugbomah pulled behind Plaintiff and attempted to get around Plaintiff's vehicle, chirping the sirens at Plaintiff. (Tr. 70:1–71:15.) When Glenn realized that they could not drive any further due to the traffic conditions, caused by a red light at the intersection, Glenn pulled into the bus stop to Plaintiff's right, behind a bus that was pulling out of the stop and into traffic. (Tr. 70:18–72:10, 74:25–76:10, 312:14–313:24.) The police car became boxed in, and Glenn could not maneuver around either the bus or the traffic in the street, and he gestured to Plaintiff to move right and backward, alongside the back of the bus, so that he could drive around Plaintiff's vehicle. (Tr. 76:11–24, 78:20–79:11, 83:6–18, 316:1–13.) Plaintiff gestured back by putting his hands up in an inquiring manner, attempting to indicate his belief that he could not move, which Glenn interpreted as a gesture of exasperation.² (Tr. 79:17–21, 316:13–17.) Glenn stepped out of the vehicle and asked for Plaintiff's documents, and had taken either Plaintiff's license or registration and insurance information from Plaintiff when the traffic light turned green and traffic began moving forward.³

(Tr. 87:22–88:17, 317:6–318:4.) Glenn returned to the police vehicle and drove it to Rockaway Parkway, with the document, and Plaintiff stayed where he was. (Tr. 88:21–23, 99:1–5, 318:5–11.)

Plaintiff waited, in his vehicle, at the intersection of Church Avenue and East 96th Street for up to twenty minutes⁴ until Glenn returned in the vehicle. (Tr. 320:20–321:8.) Plaintiff's air conditioning did not work and it was a hot day. (Tr. 95:19–20, 307:20–25.) When Glenn returned, he demanded the rest of Plaintiff's documents—either his driver's license, or his registration and proof of insurance—which he never ended up taking. (Tr. 94:18–95:11, 321:23–323:10.) Plaintiff asked Glenn what he was going to do, and Glenn and Plaintiff had a brief conversation or argument,⁵ in which Glenn warned Plaintiff that he could be issued a summons or arrested. (Tr. 100:18–20, 321:23–322:21.)

Glenn pulled Plaintiff out of the vehicle, pushed Plaintiff against the car, handcuffed Plaintiff in front of J.G., and placed Plaintiff under arrest. (Tr. 101:21–102:20, 105:5–107:13, 322:22–323:7.) Glenn told Plaintiff that someone needed to pick up J.G., or J.G. would be left with the Administration for Children's Services. (Tr. 108:3–109:6, 327:8–24.) An acquaintance, Yvonne Fraser, was walking by and offered to take J.G. back to school, which she did, and Glenn placed Plaintiff in the back seat of his police vehicle. (Tr. 109:7–25, 290:18–291:17, 328:25–329:1.) The handcuffs were tight and Plaintiff complained that they were too tight, and irritated an area of his arm where he had recently had surgery. (Tr. 178:21–179:3, 325:21–326:23.) After Plaintiff continued to complain, Glenn addressed the problem either by loosening the handcuffs or removing them.⁶ (Tr. 114:9–12, 144:5–6.) After speaking with Plaintiff for a short time, Glenn issued Plaintiff a summons for disorderly conduct.⁷ (Tr. 50:3–16, 111:14–112:2, 334:6–23; Pl. Ex. 1.) In total, Plaintiff spent about thirty-six minutes in the police car before he was released. (Tr. 160:23–161:3.) Ugbomah was in and out of the car, still looking for the complainant in the emergency to which they had been responding, but he was present when Glenn was placing Plaintiff under arrest. (Tr. 153:14–24, 175:23–176:3, 321:15–21, 329:11–15.)

Glenn made two mistakes in filling out the summons, including failing to specify a subsection of the disorderly conduct statute. (Tr. 113:24–114:8.) Plaintiff reported to court, as required, on August 29, 2007, and received notice that a legally sufficient accusatory instrument was never filed in court and thus the matter had been dismissed. (Tr. 334:24–336:9.)

b. Conclusion of proceedings and jury verdict

At the conclusion of Plaintiff's case, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff's claim for false arrest against Ugbomah fails as a matter of law because there is no evidence of intent to confine Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff's claim for false arrest against Glenn fails because Glenn had probable cause to arrest for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle and for obstruction of governmental administration; (3) Plaintiff's claim for excessive force fails because the force used was de minimis; (4) Plaintiff's assault and battery claim fails because Glenn's contact with Plaintiff was privileged; (5) there was insufficient evidence to support Plaintiff's claims against Ugbomah on a failure to intervene theory; and (6) Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and state law immunity for all claims. (Tr. 448:25–452:1.) The Court reserved ruling on Defendants' motion,⁸ and Defendants rested without presenting further evidence. (Tr. 463:2–7.) Defendants also requested that the jury make specific findings of fact to enable the Court to determine qualified immunity as to the false arrest and excessive force claims. (See Tr. 415:13–422:9.) The Court submitted the case to the jury.

The jury found that Plaintiff had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Glenn falsely arrested him on June 8, 2007, and that Ugbomah failed to intervene in the false arrest. (Verdict Sheet, Ct. Ex. 1 at 1, Docket Entry No. 100.) It determined that Plaintiff had not proved his other claims by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id. at 1–2.) Plaintiff was awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages. (Id. at 2.) The jury also made findings of fact on a special verdict sheet, separate from the general verdict sheet. (Special Verdict Sheet, Ct. Ex. 2, Docket Entry No. 100–1.) The questions and answers found by the jury are reproduced below:

1. Did defendant Glenn indicate that the plaintiff should move his

...