Hinton v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 21 March 1961
• Parties: Johnson HINTON, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Ralph Plaisance and Michael Dolan, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 97

212 N.Y.S.2d 97

13 A.D.2d 475

Johnson HINTON, Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent, Ralph

Plaisance and Michael Dolan, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 21, 1961.

Edward W. Jacko, Jr., New York City, of counsel (Jawn A. Sandifer, New York City, on the brief) for plaintiff-respondent-appellant.

John A. Murray, New York City, of counsel (Seymour B. Quel, New York City, on the brief; Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Council, New York City, attorney) for defendant-appellant-respondent.

Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, VALENTE, STEVENS, and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff on the first cause of action and in favor of defendant City of New York on the second, third and fourth causes of action, affirmed without costs to either party. Upon the trial of the action the jury rendered a verdict for $75,000 in favor of plaintiff on the first cause of action, which alleged personal injuries resulting from excessive force used by police officers in the course of arresting plaintiff on the street. It is not disputed that plaintiff was struck by one or more members of the Police Department, in the course of arrest. Plaintiff contends that the force used was excessive. Defendant contends that only sufficient force was used in the circumstances to effectuate arrest. There is disagreement as to how many policemen hit plaintiff, and the number of times he was hit. From the verdict, the jury apparently chose to believe plaintiff's version of the facts. There was sufficient credible evidence to support plaintiff's version, and the jury's verdict, that the severity of the force used was inordinate in relation to the force necessary to effect arrest. The severity of the brain damage and other injuries plaintiff suffered are consistent with a finding that he was subjected to excessive force. In view of the conflicting evidence, it was for the jury to determine whether the police involved exceeded permissible bounds in effectuating plaintiff's arrest. Likewise, in respect of plaintiff's appeal from the judgment in favor of the City of New York upon the second, third and fourth causes of action, these causes also involved disputed issues of fact which were properly submitted to the jury on instructions to which no exception was taken.

All concur except STEUER, J., who dissents.

STEUER, Justice (dissenting).

Plaintiff sues on four causes of action. The first is based on assault alleged to have occurred on 125th Street, the second on an assault alleged to have occurred in a precinct police station, the third for false arrest and the fourth for malicious prosecution. After trial the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $75,000 on the first cause of action and for the defendant city on the remaining causes of action. The city appeals from the judgment against it on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence and that it is excessive. Plaintiff appeals from so much of the verdict as found against him on the last three causes of action.

The plaintiff's version of the facts to support the first cause of action is in broad outline as follows: At about 10 o'clock in the evening of April 26, 1957, he was on 125th Street near the corner of Lenox Avenue, talking to a friend. A man dragging a woman by the hand passed them. This couple were engaged in a loud argument, and the attention of people on the street, including plaintiff, was drawn to them. They crossed Lenox Avenue and plaintiff saw them stop. A few minutes later he and his friend walked towards them to see what was happening. About 15 people had gathered around them and, when plaintiff arrived, he saw that two policemen were beating the man unmercifully. He remonstrated with them. No one else in this small crowd said anything. Shortly thereafter, police cars began to arrive from all directions and people attracted by them came to the scene, so that the crowd now numbered about 50. After the police had subdued the man, whose name he later learned was Poe, they directed the crowd to disperse. Plaintiff was proceeding slowly from the scene, at the same time looking for his friend from whom he had evidently become detached. Suddenly a police...