Henry–lee v. the City of N.Y.

Decision Date30 September 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08 Civ. 0089(DC).,08 Civ. 0089(DC).
Citation746 F.Supp.2d 546
PartiesAneita HENRY–LEE, Plaintiff,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

The Adam Office, P.C., by: Richard Adam, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.Michael A. Cardozo, Esq., Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, by: Arthur G. Larkin, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants John Baumeister, Michael Ingram, Kevin Roughneen, and The City of New York.Frank J. Rubino, Esq., Corporation Counsel of the City of Yonkers, by: Michael Levinson, Esq., Associate Corporation Counsel, Yonkers, NY, for Defendant City of Yonkers.Marks, O'Neil, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C., by: David S. Henry, Esq., Elmsford, NY, for Defendant JMR Rest. Corp.

OPINION
CHIN, Circuit Judge Sitting By Designation.

Plaintiff Aneita Henry–Lee brings this action as Administratrix of the estate of her son Peter Lee. In the early-morning hours of January 4, 2006, defendant Michael Ingram, an off-duty New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) sergeant, shot and killed Lee outside of Rory Dolan's Bar and Restaurant (Rory Dolan's”) in Yonkers, New York. Plaintiff alleges that the shooting of her son was unjustified and asserts civil rights and other causes of action against Ingram, two other NYPD officers, and the City of New York (the New York City Defendants). Plaintiff further alleges that defendant JMR Rest. Corp. (“JMR”), the proprietor of Rory Dolan's, and defendant City of Yonkers are also liable for her son's death. All defendants move for summary judgment.

Defendants' motion is granted. Lee's death was tragic, but on the facts before the Court, construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find that any defendant was liable. Accordingly, judgment will be entered dismissing the amended complaint in all respects.

BACKGROUND
A. Facts

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The following facts are drawn from the deposition transcripts, affidavits, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties. Certain undisputed facts are drawn from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements.

On the evening of January 3, 2006, defendants John Baumeister and Kevin Roughneen, police officers 1 in the NYPD Bronx Anti–Crime unit, worked a shift ending at approximately 2:05 AM on January 4. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 1, 3; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 1, 3). That evening Ingram also worked a shift, which ended at about 2:15 AM. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 2; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 2). Then, Baumeister, Roughneen, and Ingram (the Defendant Officers”) drove in separate cars to Rory Dolan's in Yonkers. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 5; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 5). Baumeister and Ingram were carrying their authorized off-duty firearms when they entered Rory Dolan's. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 2; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 2; Baumeister Dep. 84–86; Ingram Decl. ¶ 3). Roughneen was not armed. (Roughneen Dep. 121:14–17). The three officers were in plain clothes and neither their guns nor badges were visible. ( See Adam Decl. Ex. I (“Video”)).2

The main entrance to Rory Dolan's is located on the far right of the building's facade, from the perspective of the street. (JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 59; Pl.'s Response to JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 59). There is an additional “exit door” from the bar area 3 located on the facade about forty feet to the left of the main entrance, from the perspective of the street. (JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 61; Pl.'s Response to JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 61). Separating the bar area from the main entrance's exterior door are a five-feet by five-feet vestibule and an interior door. (JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 62; Pl.'s Response to JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 62). The main interior door is located in the front-right corner of the bar area. (JMR 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 59, 62; Pl.'s Response to JMR 56.1 Statement ¶¶ 59, 62). The central fixture of the bar area is the bar, the sides of which are 101 feet long and run perpendicular to the front of the building. (JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 62; Pl.'s Response to JMR 56.1 Statement ¶ 62; Video). Behind the bar, in the bartender work area, are two islands with liquor bottles and cash registers. (Dolan Dep. 154:4–5; NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 9; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 9; Video). The only break in the bar is a sixteen-inch walk-through, which is located on the short side of the bar at the back of the bar area. (Dolan Dep. 154:4–155:12). The restrooms are near the back of the bar. (Dolan Dep. 154:11–18).

Upon arriving at Rory Dolan's, the Defendant Officers met their friend Jennifer Bradley and Bradley's roommate, Ashley Warrington. (Bradley Dep. 8–10, 40:13–18; Baumeister Dep. 81:8–9, 150:22–151:3). The Defendant Officers took a seat with Bradley, Warrington, and Sara (a friend of Warrington) 4 on the long side of the bar closest to the vestibule, that is, on the right side of the bar. (Video 11:55:58; Baumeister Dep. 72:7–10; Bradley Dep. 8–9). There were approximately ten to fifteen people in Rory Dolan's at the time. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 11; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 11).

Approximately eighteen minutes after the Defendant Officers arrived at Rory Dolan's, Michael Castaldo and Joseph McAllister arrived and took a seat at the bar opposite where the Defendant Officers were sitting. (Video 12:14:00). Castaldo and McAllister had met just a few minutes earlier when Castaldo hailed McAllister's cab. (Castaldo Dep. 10:23–11:13; McAllister Statement 1–2). Castaldo was visibly intoxicated when he arrived at Rory Dolan's. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 13; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 13). Approximately six minutes after arriving, Castaldo approached the Defendant Officers' group and briefly-flirted with Warrington and Bradley. (Baumeister Dep. 97:16–22; Video 12:20:05–12:20:38). After sitting on the left side of the bar for about five minutes, Castaldo exited Rory Dolan's with McAllister to have a cigarette (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 14; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 14; Video 12:25:04). Shortly thereafter, Bradley also exited through the vestibule to have a cigarette. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 15; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 15; Video 12:26:05).

While outside, Castaldo met Lee, who was walking by. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 14; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 14; Castaldo Dep. 11:17; Bradley 13:10–18). Lee and Castaldo had never met. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 17; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 17). They had a brief argument, but they laughed and made up, and Castaldo invited Lee into Rory Dolan's for a drink. (Bradley Dep. 14:9–15:1; Castaldo Dep. 12:7–11; McAllister Statement 2). Lee accepted the invitation, and Lee and Castaldo entered Rory Dolan's together. (Video 12:28:25; Baumeister Dep. 105:13–106:11, 112:23–113:5; Bradley Dep. 15:13–18; Castaldo Dep. 13:25–14:2). Lee had a “no-nonsense, no-kidding-around look” when he entered the bar, like he wanted to “present himself as a tough guy.” 5 (Castaldo Dep. 12:19–21, 13:12–14). After witnessing the interaction between Lee and Castaldo outside the bar, Bradley returned to her seat on the right side of the bar.6

Upon sitting down with Lee on the left side of the bar, Castaldo bought Lee several drinks. (NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 22; Pl.'s Response to NYC 56.1 Statement ¶ 22). While sitting at the bar, Castaldo reached over to hug Lee on several occasions, but Lee pushed him away. (Video 12:36:25–12:39:43). 7

Though the witnesses' descriptions of Castaldo's and Lee's behavior while inside the bar differ in specificity and with regard to some details, they uniformly describe Castaldo's and Lee's behavior as disruptive. Baumeister and Roughneen report that at one point, Castaldo, with either Lee or McAllister, walked up to the Defendant Officers' party and said something to the effect that we should bust their heads ... and take their girls.” (Baumeister Dep. 120:3–8; Roughneen Dep. 139:17–21).8 Bradley reports that Lee and Castaldo approached her and Warrington at one point and looked them up and down, while Lee muttered under his breath in a “derogatory” way. (Bradley Dep. 19:1–20:4). Bartender Alan Slattery largely confirms Bradley's account. (Slattery Statement 1 ([Castaldo] and [Lee] were walking around the bar and bothering people. The two guys looked like they were checking out the cops or something.”)). The other bartender, Stephen Hughes, did not see Lee walking around the bar, but describes Castaldo as making “sexual comments” that were [d]emeaning to a girl.” (Hughes Dep. 109:4–7). The accounts of several other witnesses are similar. (Cassidy Statement 1 ([Castaldo] and [Lee] went over to this crowd. I could see that there might be trouble just by the way [they] were looking at the girls who were with this crowd of guys.”); Ronan Statement 1 ([Castaldo] was walking around the bar giving everybody a hard time.... I first saw [him] trying to talk to a really tall white girl. It was obvious that the girl did not want to talk to him.”); Warrington Statement 1 ([Castaldo] made some vulgar gestures with his tongue towards Jen.”)).

The Video confirms Bradley's account that both Lee and Castaldo approached the Defendant Officers' party. In the Video, Castaldo and Lee, after being in Rory Dolan's for just over ten minutes, walk around the back of the bar and toward the Defendant Officers' party. (Video 12:40:43–12:41:42). After walking a few feet past the officers, Lee and Castaldo stop and stare at the Defendant Officers' party for about twenty seconds. (Video 12:41:09–12:41:28). They then return to their seats. (Video 12:41:28–12:41:42).

As relayed by Hughes, when Castaldo and Lee returned to their seats on the left side of the bar, they “shout[ed] obscenities” for “a few minutes” at the Defendant Officers, who remained seated on the right side of the bar. (Hughes Dep. 124:5–7, 12–14...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • Patrick v. Success Acad. Charter Sch., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • December 14, 2018
    ...... policies or customs that it has sanctioned[ ] led to an independent constitutional violation.’ " Henry-Lee v. City of N.Y. , 746 F.Supp.2d 546, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Segal v. City of N.Y. , 459 F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) ) (emphasis in original). Once a "district court properly......
  • Cunney v. Bd. of Trs. of Grand View
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 29, 2014
    ...quotation marks omitted); see also Mulvihill v. New York, 956 F.Supp.2d 425, 427 (W.D.N.Y.2013) (same); Henry–Lee v. City of New York, 746 F.Supp.2d 546, 559 n. 11 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (same). Here, the ZBA is “merely [an] administrative arm[ ]” of Defendant Village. (See Village Zoning Law, at X......
  • Breitkopf v. Gentile
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 29, 2014
    ...an employee of the defendant municipality generally must have committed the underlying constitutional violation. See, e.g., Henry–Lee, 746 F.Supp.2d at 567 (“[A] constitutional violation by a municipal employee is a necessary prerequisite to municipal liability under Monell. ”); cf. Bd. of ......
  • Soto v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 18, 2015
    ...underlying constitutional violation is an essential element of a failure to intercede claim under § 1983." Henry–Lee v. City of New York, 746 F.Supp.2d 546, 566 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (citing Ricciuti, 124 F.3d at 129 ); see Wieder v. City of New York, 569 Fed.Appx. 28, 30 (2d Cir.2014) ("Because t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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