Mizrahi v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 13 August 2018
• Docket Number: 15-CV-6084 (ARR) (LB)
• Parties: SHULAMIT MIZRAHI, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER JUN CHEN, POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH CORRADO, THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL (a/k/a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL), NOVLEEN NELSON, and SATISH ABEELUCK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

SHULAMIT MIZRAHI, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER JUN CHEN,POLICE OFFICER JOSEPH CORRADO, THENEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL (a/k/a NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL),NOVLEEN NELSON, and SATISH ABEELUCK, Defendants.

15-CV-6084 (ARR) (LB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 13, 2018

OPINION & ORDER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROSS, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, Shulamit Mizrahi, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York state common law against the City of New York, Police Officer Jun Chen, and Police Officer Joseph Corrado (collectively, "City defendants") and New York Presbyterian Hospital ("NYPH"), Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Novleen Nelson, and EMT Satish Abeeluck (collectively, "EMT defendants") stemming from her interaction with the aforementioned police officers and EMTs on August 10, 2015.¹ Plaintiff alleges that, on that date, the individual defendants unlawfully entered her apartment, seized her, and took her to the hospital against her will in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff additionally asserts the following state law causes of action: false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and, as against NYPH, negligenthiring, training, and supervision.² On January 5, 2018, defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Mizrahi's claims. Mizrahi cross-moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a determination that exigent circumstances did not justify the individual defendants' warrantless entry into her apartment and that the individual defendants did not have probable cause to confine and take her to the hospital against her will.³

For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions are granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, I deny the individual EMT defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful entry and false arrest claims under § 1983, as well as plaintiff's state false imprisonment claim. I also deny their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's federal claims based on qualified immunity, as their entitlement to qualified immunity under federal law is now foreclosed. I grant their motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's remaining state law claims. Furthermore, I deny NYPH's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's state false imprisonment claim but grant NYPH's motion as to plaintiff's other state law claims.

As to the City defendants, I deny the defendant police officers' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful entry, false arrest, and failure to intervene claims under § 1983, as well as plaintiff's state false imprisonment claim. I grant their motion for summary judgmenton plaintiff's remaining state law claims. I deny the City's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's state false imprisonment claim but grant the City's motion as to plaintiff's other state law claims.

As to plaintiff, I grant her motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the individual defendants' defense of exigent circumstances for their allegedly unlawful entry into her apartment. I also grant her summary judgment on the defendant police officers' affirmative defense of qualified immunity on this basis. In addition, I grant plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the defendant police officers' defense of probable cause as to her false arrest claim. However, the defendant police officers' defense of qualified immunity on this claim remains open.

BACKGROUND

The facts described below are taken from the parties' depositions, affidavits, exhibits, Rule 56.1 statements, and responsive Rule 56.1 statements.⁴ The facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. I draw "all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought, viewing the factual assertions in [the] materials . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051, 1061 (2d Cir. 1995).

On the evening of August 10, 2015, two police officers, defendants Chen and Corrado, and two EMTs, defendants Nelson and Abeeluck, responded to a 911 call from an unidentifiedthough self-described "friend" of the plaintiff's. Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 9; City Defs.' Resp. 56.1 ¶ 9; EMT Defs.' Resp. 56.1 ¶ 9. The caller, later identified as Asher Adry, told the 911 dispatcher that he thought his "friend" was "going to hurt herself." Decl. of Cherie Brown in Supp. of City Defs.' Summ. J. Mot. ("Brown Decl."), Ex. I, Audio File 911MSG_01 at 00:13-00:17, ECF No. 130-9; City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 7; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 p. 4, ¶ 7. In that call, Adry informed the 911 operator that he had spoken with plaintiff a few minutes earlier. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 8. He provided the 911 operator with plaintiff's name—though he misspelled her last name—as well as a general description of plaintiff's address (the "old building" at "East 2^nd Street and Avenue P"). Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 10. He also stated that he thought plaintiff's apartment was "on the third floor . . . 3A or something like that" but, when asked for the plaintiff's exact address, responded "I have no idea." Brown Decl. Ex. I, at 00:40-01:15; City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12; Pl's Resp. 56.1 ¶ 12. Adry informed the operator that Mizrahi's name was on the door to the building and offered to meet the police there. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 13-14. When the 911 dispatcher asked if he believed plaintiff was "suicidal," Adry answered, "obviously yes." Id. ¶ 9.

At 8:43 PM, the 911 dispatcher assigned the job of responding to the 911 call to EMTs Nelson and Abeeluck, who were operating an ambulance at the time. Id. ¶ 18; EMT Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6. The 911 dispatcher relayed to the individual EMT defendants the address Adry told her as well as the following information: an unidentified male caller said "friend trying to hurt herself" and "female patient 48[,] suicidal, location old building, possible [a]partment 3A." Decl. of Gregory J. Radomisli in Supp. of EMT Defs.' Summ J. Mot. ("Radomisli Decl."), Ex. H ("Nelson Dep."), at 141:6-142:18, ECF No. 121-8; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 p. 6, ¶ 19. EMTs Nelson and Abeeluck proceeded to the location that the 911 dispatcher told them to go to but did not see anyone who was in need of assistance. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 21; EMT Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 6. EMTs Nelsonand Abeeluck called the 911 dispatcher and requested that he or she call back the person who made the initial 911 call to get more information. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 22. However, when 911 traced Adry's phone number and called him, the calls went to Adry's voicemail. Id. ¶ 23.

At approximately 8:45 PM, 911 dispatch relayed to Officers Chen and Corrado information similar to what the EMTs had received, including that the 911 caller was a male who stated that his friend was "trying to hurt herself." Id. ¶¶ 25-26. The two officers then arrived at the location where they were told to go but, after canvassing the intersection, observed no one in distress. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Like the EMTs, they called 911 and asked for more information. Id. ¶ 27. Receiving none, Officers Chen and Corrado marked the job "unfounded" at 9:02 PM and proceeded to their next assignment. Id. ¶ 29; Radomisli Decl. Ex. J ("Chen Dep."), at 43:11-24, ECF No. 121-10.

Approximately thirty minutes after plaintiff and Adry spoke on the phone, Adry arrived at plaintiff's apartment. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 30; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 p. 9, ¶ 30. Adry informed plaintiff that the police were coming and that he had told them that she was "crazy" and suicidal. EMT Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 8-9; Radomisli Decl. Ex. G ("Mizrahi Dep."), at 110:25-111:20, ECF No. 121-7. Plaintiff did not believe Adry and asked him to leave, which he did. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 32; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 p. 9, ¶ 32.

At approximately 9:05 PM, a 911 operator called Adry for more information about plaintiff's address, and Adry provided plaintiff's correct apartment number. Brown Decl. Ex. M, Audio_74105 at 00:24-00:50; Pl.'s Resp. 56.1 p. 9, ¶ 33. The 911 operator relayed this information to EMTs Nelson and Abeeluck, and EMT Nelson responded that they needed plaintiff's exact address, not just the apartment number. Brown Decl. Ex. M, Audio_74107 at 00:10-00:19. The 911 operator again called Adry to ask for plaintiff's exact address and Adryrestated that it was "the old building" at the intersection of 2^nd Street and Avenue P but that he did not know plaintiff's exact address. Brown Decl. Ex. M, Audio _74108 at 00:24-00:50. The 911 operator conveyed this information to the individual EMT defendants. Id. Audio_74109 at 00:05-00:30. After driving their ambulance around the vicinity of East 2^nd Street and Avenue P, EMTs Nelson and Abeeluck located a building that matched the 911 caller's description at East 3^rd Street and Avenue P. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 34. Upon seeing an apartment number that matched the one that the 911 caller had provided, EMT Nelson notified the dispatcher of the correct address and requested police presence. Id. ¶¶ 35-36.

Around twenty minutes later, 911 dispatch notified Officers Chen and Corrado that there was an emotionally disturbed person (EDP) at 1679 East 3^rd Street, Apartment 302, and the two proceeded to that location. Id. ¶ 38. There is no indication that the officers knew that this call related to the earlier call about Mizrahi. See Chen Dep. 52:14-20. After the police officers arrived, one of the four defendants rang plaintiff's bell to gain entry into the apartment complex. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 39. Presumably over an intercom, plaintiff asked who was there and one of the officers answered, "Police." Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff "buzzed them in," meaning that she unlocked the door electronically, allowing them entry into the building. Id. ¶ 41; EMT Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 12. The four defendants then proceeded to plaintiff's apartment on the third floor and Officer Chen knocked on her door. City Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 43; EMT Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 13. Plaintiff asked who was there, and Officer Chen stated, "Police...