Grant v. City of Syracuse

Decision Date08 February 2019
Docket Number5:15-CV-0445 (DNH/TWD)
Parties Alonzo and Stephanie GRANT, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE; Damon Lockett, Police Officer; Paul Montalto, Police Officer, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ., A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ., LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER, 475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 212, Sausalito, California 94965, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

JESSE P. RYDER, ESQ., RYDER LAW FIRM, 121 E. Water Street, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

CHRISTINA F. DEJOSEPH, ESQ., TODD M. LONG, ESQ., CITY OF SYRACUSE CORPORATION, 233 East Washington Street, Room 300 City Hall, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorney for Defendants.

JOHN G. POWERS, ESQ., PAUL J. TUCK, ESQ., HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP, 1500 AXA Tower I, 100 Madison Street, Syracuse, New York 13202, Attorneys for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM, DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...190

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...190

III. LEGAL STANDARDS...191

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law...191
C. Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses...192

IV. DISCUSSION...193

A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law - Rule 50...193
B. Motion for a New Trial - Rule 59...194
(i) The Award to Mr. Grant was not excessive...194
(ii) The Loss of Consortium Award to Mrs. Grant was not excessive...195
(iii) Purported Trial Errors...196
a. Admission of Citizen Review Board Findings...196
b. Jury Instruction With Regards to Handcuffing...197
c. Qualified Immunity...198
C. Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses...199

V. CONCLUSION...209

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiffs Alonzo Grant ("Mr. Grant") and Stephanie Grant ("Mrs. Grant") brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law against defendants the City of Syracuse ("the City"), Syracuse Police Officer Damon Lockett ("Officer Lockett") and Police Officer Paul Montalto ("Officer Montalto"), among others. On October 23, 2018, following a jury trial that lasted nine days and featured twenty eight witnesses, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs against Officers Lockett and Montalto and awarded compensatory damages to Mr. Grant in the amount of $ 1,130,000.00 and damages for loss of consortium to Mrs. Grant in the amount of $ 450,000.00.

Presently under consideration are: (a) defendants' motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) for judgment as a matter of law and Rule 59 for a new trial or remittitur (ECF No.1 164) and (b) plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and expenses (ECF No. 166). Both motions have been fully briefed. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is denied and plaintiffs' motion is granted in part.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .

The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in earlier decisions. The following is a brief summary of the testimony and evidence presented at trial.

On June 28, 2014, plaintiffs resided at 105 Hudson Street in the City of Syracuse with their youngest son, Alonzo Grant, Jr. In the early evening while a family barbeque was occurring, Mr. Grant got in an argument with his daughter Alyssa and requested she leave the home. After she left, she proceeded to get in an argument with a neighbor prompting Mr. Grant to call 911 and request police assistance. Officers Lockett and Montalto arrived at the Grant home soon thereafter and were advised by plaintiffs that their assistance was not needed as Alyssa had left.

However, Officers Lockett and Montalto testified that Mr. Grant was yelling at an unidentified person in the residence and they were concerned about a domestic situation. Officer Lockett entered the residence and testified that Mr. Grant was flailing his arms violently and was still upset with the female occupant of the home. Officer Lockett then asked Mr. Grant to exit his house and speak with Officer Montalto. While exiting the home, Mr. Grant shoved the front door, causing it to hit against an iron rail on the front porch. Officer Lockett testified that he decided to place handcuffs on Mr. Grant to permit him to calm down and for the safety of Mr. Grant and those around him. He testified that he attempted to do this while on the front stairs to the home and that Mr. Grant turned around and bear hugged him, necessitating Officer Lockett to grab Mr. Grant and strike him at least ten times in the head and torso.

In contrast, plaintiffs testified that their argument had ceased by the time Officers Lockett and Montalto arrived. Plaintiffs testified that Mr. Grant spoke loudly while inside the home but did not act violently. Mr. Grant testified that after exiting the home, Officer Lockett grabbed him from behind, throwing him over the railing on the front porch. Plaintiffs testified that while on the ground, both Officers Lockett and Montalto repeatedly kicked and punched Mr. Grant. Eventually, the officers handcuffed Mr. Grant.2 Following the incident, Mr. Grant received medical attention from paramedics and was transported to the hospital.

Mr. Grant was subsequently charged with violating New York Penal Law § 240.26(1) ("Harassment in the Second Degree"), Penal Law § 240.20(1) and Criminal Procedure Law § 530.11 ("Domestic Disorderly Conduct"), and Penal Law § 205.30 ("Resisting Arrest"). On September 10, 2014, the Syracuse Criminal Court dismissed all the charges against Mr. Grant in the interest of justice pursuant to Penal Law § 170.30.3

The jury found that Mr. Grant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Officers Lockett and Montalto falsely arrested him on June 28, 2014 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state law. See Jury Verdict, ECF No. 155. Additionally, the jury found for Mr. Grant with respect to his excessive force and assault and battery claims against Officers Lockett and Montalto. The jury did not find in favor of Mr. Grant with respect to his claim pursuant to Monell v. Depart. of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) against the City of Syracuse. Further, the jury declined to award Mr. Grant punitive damages against Officers Lockett or Montalto. Lastly, the jury found that Mrs. Grant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions of Officers Lockett and Montalto deprived her of the comfort, companionship and services of her husband.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS .

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law.

"A Rule 50 motion may be granted only when, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all reasonable evidentiary inferences in that party's favor, there was no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find in favor of the non-moving party." Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 390 (2d Cir. 2005). A jury verdict should not be set aside lightly, and only where there is "such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the movant that reasonable and fair minded men could not arrive at a verdict against him." AMW Materials Testing, Inc. v. Town of Babylon, 584 F.3d 436, 456 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). In reviewing such a motion, a court must give "deference to all credibility determinations and reasonable inferences of the jury, and may not weigh the credibility of witnesses or otherwise consider the weight of the evidence." Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, 531 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted).

B. Motion for New Trial.

Pursuant to Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may grant a new trial "after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court." In this Circuit, in order to grant a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a), a court "must conclude that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or ... the verdict is a miscarriage of justice, i.e., it must view the jury's verdict as against the weight of the evidence." Manley v. AmBase Corp., 337 F.3d 237, 245 (2d Cir. 2003). "[A] new trial under Rule 59(a) may be granted even if there is substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict, and ... a trial judge is free to weigh the evidence himself, and need not view it in the light most favorable to the verdict winner." Id. at 244–45. The task before the court is to balance "respect [for] the jury's findings ... with avoidance of miscarriage of justice and" the court may only grant a new trial if, after viewing all the evidence, it has "a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Cunningham v. Town of Ellicott, 2007 WL 1756502, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 18, 2007).

A district court may also condition a new trial on the verdict winner's refusal to agree to a reduction, or remittitur. See Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 433, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996). A conditional order of remittitur, requiring a plaintiff to choose either a new trial or a reduced verdict, may be granted where "the award is intrinsically excessive in the sense of being greater than the amount a reasonable jury could have awarded, although the surplus cannot be ascribed to a particular, quantifiable error." Shu–Tao Lin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 742 F.2d 45, 49 (2d Cir. 1984) ; see also Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 165 (2d Cir. 1998). "Where there is no particular discernable error, we have generally held that a jury's damage award may not be set aside as excessive unless ‘the award is so high as to shock the judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • D.S. by and Through M.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • February 15, 2019
    ... ... the scope of this right and when it must be asserted, I reach two conclusions that lead me to grant judgment in favor of the defendant Trumbull Board of Education and against plaintiff student D.S ... Sch. Dist. , 752 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2014) (describing IEPs); R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ. , 694 F.3d 167, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (same). 357 F.Supp.3d 171 The IDEA requires ... ...
  • Montanez v. City of Chester
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • August 31, 2020
    ...Hill, 522 F.3d at 190 (citing Polk v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir. 1983)); Grant v. City of Syracuse, 357 F. Supp. 3d 180, 200-01 (N.D.N.Y. 2019). "[W]hen faced with a request for an award of higher out-of-district rates, a district court must first apply a pre......
  • Brennan v. City of Middletown
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 8, 2020
    ...if, after viewing all the evidence, it has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Grant v. City of Syracuse, 357 F. Supp.3d 180, 192 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).C. Qualified Immunity "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials......
  • Johnson v. Mauro
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • November 7, 2019
    ...182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Polk v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1983)); Grant v. City of Syracuse, 357 F. Supp. 3d 180, 200-01 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) ("The Second Circuit 'forum rule' generally requires use of 'the hourlyrates employed in the district in which the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT