Harrison v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport

• Decision Date: 30 October 2020
• Docket Number: 2:16-cv-2442 (SJF) (AYS)
• Parties: Timothy HARRISON, Plaintiff, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, the Village of Freeport Police Department, Police Officer Kennedy Badge Number 110, Police Officer Freddy Pereira, Badge Number 180 (Kennedy & Pereira Individually and as Police Officers), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

498 F.Supp.3d 378

Timothy HARRISON, Plaintiff,

v.INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, the Village of Freeport Police Department, Police Officer Kennedy Badge Number 110, Police Officer Freddy Pereira, Badge Number 180 (Kennedy & Pereira Individually and as Police Officers), Defendants.

2:16-cv-2442 (SJF) (AYS)

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

Signed October 30, 2020

Samuels & Associates, P.C., Attorneys for the Plaintiff, 135-13 Hook Creek Boulevard, Rosedale, NY 11422, By: Violet Elizabeth Samuels, Esq., Of Counsel.

Bee Ready Fishbein Hatter & Donovan, LLP, Attorneys for the Defendants, 170 Old Country Road, Suite 200, Mineola, NY 11501, By: Andrew Kenneth Preston, Esq., Michael Paul Siravo, Esq. Of Counsel.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:

Timothy Harrison (the "Plaintiff") brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Town of Hempstead, the Incorporated Village of Freeport, the Village of Freeport Police Department, and Police Officers Kennedy (the Plaintiff did not provide Officer Kennedy's first name) and Freddy Pereira, in their individual and official capacities, (the "Defendants") in New York State Supreme Court. The Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that was the subject of a 911 call about a purported car chase. The Plaintiff also alleged that officers from the Freeport Police Department detained him and the vehicle's other inhabitants and that during this detention, officers removed him from the vehicle and caused him great pain by throwing him to the ground; pushing his face into concrete; handcuffing him and sitting on him; and leaving him in handcuffs, exposed to the cold weather without a coat.

The Plaintiff raised claims under the Constitution, § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and tort law. He asked for unspecified damages. The Defendants removed the case to federal court, and the matter went before the Honorable Arthur D. Spatt. The case was reassigned to the undersigned on June 30, 2020.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, rules that the individual officers are not entitled to qualified immunity, and dismisses defendants the Village of Freeport and the Village of Freeport Police Department from the action.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties’ FED. R. CIV. P. 56.1 statements. ECF 41-1, 46. Unless otherwise noted, the facts are not in dispute.

A. The Events Leading Up to the Plaintiff's Detention

Although the parties agree that the events in question (hereinafter, the "incident") occurred in January 2014, the Defendants contend that the incident started around 11:00 pm on January 14, and the Plaintiff contends the incident started after 11:40 pm on January 15, and claims that the date is highly relevant to the action, because the temperature forms one of the bases for his claims. ECF 46 at 4.

On the evening of the incident, non-party Krista Frank ("Frank") was inside a bodega on Main Street in the Village of Freeport. An unknown African American male (the "Unknown Male") approached her and attempted to talk to her. The Defendants allege that Frank left the bodega, followed by the Unknown Male. The Plaintiff asserts that Frank and the Unknown Male exited the bodega at the same time, and that Frank was not referring to the Plaintiff when describing the Unknown Male. Id. at 8–9. Frank saw the Unknown Male walk up to a Silver Toyota Scion (the "Scion"), which contained multiple men.

The Scion was parked next to Frank's car. The Unknown Male walked over to Frank's car, which Frank had since entered, and tried to speak with her again. She replied that she was not interested in speaking with him. The Defendants allege that the Unknown Male attempted to open the door to Frank's locked car, pulling the door so hard that he removed the door handle; the Plaintiff denies that he did this. Id. at 9.

Frank drove away, noticing soon after that the Scion was following her. She called the police, while the Scion was still behind her. While Frank was on the phone with the police, she saw police lights, though the parties disagree about the direction from which the police arrived. Id. at 10. The police informed Frank that they had pulled over a silver Scion, at which point Frank observed that the Scion was no longer following her.

B. The Stop and Detention

Officer Pereira, on patrol on the night of the incident, received a radio call of a vehicle chase another vehicle. The Defendants allege that shortly thereafter, Officers Curtis ("Curtis") and Kennedy ("Kennedy") stopped the Scion which contained, among others, the Plaintiff. Pereira arrived after Curtis and Kennedy had pulled the vehicle over. Id. at 11. The Plaintiff admits that Curtis and Kennedy stopped his vehicle, but denies that his was the vehicle pursing Frank. Id.

1. The Defendants’ Summary of the Incident

The Defendants claim that Curtis performed the stop, with Kennedy in assistance. Id. at 11. Curtis approached the vehicle from the driver's side, and Kennedy approached it from the passenger's side. Id. at 12. The vehicle's occupants were screaming at Curtis, and the Plaintiff exited the vehicle, without prompting from either Kennedy or Curtis. Id. at 12–13. Kennedy told the Plaintiff to sit on the curb, next to the vehicle. Id. Pereira arrived at the location of the vehicle stop and saw the Plaintiff sitting on the grass area by the curb next to the vehicle, screaming profanities at Curtis and Kennedy, both of whom were standing nearby. Id. at 14.

The officers asked the Plaintiff for his identification, and he replied that it was in his jacket, located inside the vehicle. Id. As Kennedy handed the jacket to the Plaintiff, Sergeant Barry McGovern ("McGovern"), asked Kennedy if he had checked the jacket for weapons. Id. Kennedy pulled the jacket back, at which point the Plaintiff tried to grab the jacket. Id. at 14–15. McGovern and Pereira then started handcuffing the Plaintiff. Id. at 15. Kennedy then escorted the Plaintiff to the back seat of his police car. Id. at 16.

2. The Plaintiff's Synopsis of the Incident

The Plaintiff denies that Kennedy acted only in a supporting role, and states that Curtis and Kennedy both approached the vehicle from the passenger's side. Id. at 12. He claims that although Curtis was acting aggressively towards the people in the vehicle, no one was screaming at that time. Id. The Plaintiff contends that he did not exit the vehicle on his own, id. at 13, but rather that Kennedy approached the passenger's side of the vehicle, opened the rear door, grabbed the Plaintiff, and forcibly removed him from the vehicle, id. at 12.

Kennedy told the Plaintiff to stand still. Id. at 13. Pereira then told the Plaintiff to get on the ground. Id. When the Plaintiff asked why, Pereira threw him to the ground and kneeled on his back, and, along with Kennedy, pressed his face on the concrete while Kennedy forcefully applied handcuffs behind his back. Id. at 12–15. It was only at this point that the other occupants of the car started yelling, while Harrison cried out that he was not resisting. Id. at 12–13.

Although the officers initially asked the Plaintiff for his identification while he was still sitting in the vehicle, they did not ask again, including after they removed him from the vehicle, threw him onto the ground, and handcuffed him. Id. Throughout the incident, the Plaintiff's jacket remained in the vehicle. Id.

The Plaintiff remained on the ground, with his head pushed sideways and into the concrete, while the officers applied pressure to his lower extremities. Id. at 15. The Plaintiff cried out about pain in his knees and ankles. Id. Kennedy then escorted the Plaintiff to the back seat of his police car. Id. He sat in the car, jacketless, on a cold night and with the windows down for approximately an hour and a half before being released. Id. at 15–16.

C. Subsequent Events

Following her call to the police, Frank went to the Freeport Police Station, where officers told her that, because the Scion had followed her through multiple municipalities, she would need to speak with the Nassau County Police Department ("NCPD"). An NCPD officer arrived at the station, and Frank recounted the incident to the NCPD officer. The officer told Frank what pressing charges against the perpetrator entailed, and she declined to press charges.

The Plaintiff remained in the back seat of Kennedy's car following the incident. Approximately one hour later, he was released from custody, after Frank had declined to press charges.

D. Procedural History

The Plaintiff commenced the action against the Town of Hempstead, the Incorporated Village of Freeport, the Village of Freeport Police Department, and Kennedy and Pereira in their individual and official capacities, in New York State Supreme Court. ECF 1-1. The Plaintiff argued that Officers Kennedy and Pereira violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by way of using excessive force. Id. at 9–13. He alleged that he was falsely arrested without probable cause. Id. at 9. He claimed that the Village of Freeport Police Department was liable under § 1983 for failing to supervise and train its police officers and for overlooking and covering up its officers’ misconduct. Id. at 13–16. He claimed that the Village of Freeport Police Department violated 42 U.S.C. § 1988 by showing willful blindness to the conduct of its employees. Id. at 13. He also argued that his incident with the police was caused "wholly, solely or in part by the reasons of the careless and negligence of" the Town of Hempstead and the Incorporated Village of Freeport" because the Freeport Police Department was a sub-entity of both of those municipalities, and the police officers were their agents. Id. at 16–21. The Plaintiff further raised state law claims for assault and battery. Id. at 21. The Plaintiff asked for unspecified damages. Id. at 25.

The Defendants removed the action to federal court, and...