Parker v. Bulik
| Decision Date | 05 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 11-cv-5412(ADS)(SIL) |
| Parties | JESSE B. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL BULIK, BRUCE AZUETA, and CITY OF LONG BEACH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Hempstead, NY 11550
By: Frederick K. Brewington, Esq., Of Counsel
Office of the Corporation Counsel
for the City of Long Beach
1 West Chester Street
Long Beach, NY 11561
By: Robert M. Agostisi, Corporation Counsel
Richard Berrios, Assistant Corporation Counsel
On November 18, 2016, following a weeklong trial, a jury returned a defense verdict as to the claims of Plaintiff Jesse Parker ("Parker" or the "Plaintiff") for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York battery. Parker now seeks an order vacating the jury's verdict and entering judgment in his favor under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FED. R. CIV. P.") 50, or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59.
For the reasons that follow, those motions are denied.
On November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff commenced this action against the City of Long Beach and several individual police officers whose identities were then unknown to the Plaintiff. The case was originally assigned to United States District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.
In general, the original complaint alleged that, on November 4, 2010, mistaking his identity for that of his brother - a wanted man - the Long Beach Police Department unlawfully arrested and subjected the Plaintiff to excessive force. He alleged federal claims based on § 1983 false arrest; § 1983 false imprisonment; § 1983 excessive force; and § 1983 municipal liability under Monell. He also alleged pendent state law claims sounding in negligence; battery; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On January 3, 2012, the Defendants filed an answer substantially denying the Plaintiff's allegations of wrongdoing.
After initial discovery, on September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Subsequently, on September 18, 2012, he filed a second amended complaint. In relevant part, these filings identified the individual John Doe Defendants as Detective Lieutenant James Canner; Detective Michael Bulik; Sergeant Karl Hayes; and Police Officer Bruce Azueta. Otherwise, the amended complaints set forth substantially the same material facts and theories of liability as the original pleading.
On September 19, 2012, the Defendants moved under FED. R. CIV. P. 56 for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint.
By Memorandum and Order dated February 15, 2013, Judge Feuerstein granted that motion, dismissing the federal causes of action over which the court had original jurisdiction and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Parker's pendent state law claims.
However, in a Summary Order issued on April 15, 2014, the Second Circuit partially vacated that decision and remanded the case for additional proceedings. Namely, the Court of Appealsdetermined that, contrary to the district court's findings, triable issues of fact existed with respect to whether, on the date in question, Detective Bulik and Officer Azueta had probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff. Thus, the court reinstated the Plaintiff's claim based on § 1983 false arrest as against those individual Defendants.
On September 23, 2014, in light of the Second Circuit's decision, and upon the Plaintiff's motion, Judge Feuerstein also reinstated the pendent state law claims against those two Defendants, which had previously been dismissed without prejudice.
On May 19, 2015, the Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment, this time specifically seeking to dismiss any potential state law claims against Bulik and Azueta.
By Order dated March 21, 2016, Judge Feuerstein partially granted that motion and dismissed the claims for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court denied summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's cause of action based on New York battery.
Therefore, the only claims remaining for trial included § 1983 false arrest and common law battery against Detective Bulik and Officer Azueta.
On April 6, 2016, Judge Feuerstein recused herself from this case, and on April 8, 2016, the matter was reassigned to this Court for trial.
In a November 7, 2016 pretrial ruling, the Court reinstated the City of Long Beach as a Defendant, finding that the City may potentially be vicariously liable for the torts of its employees. Otherwise, the parties' motions in limine were denied; a jury was selected on November 7, 2016; and the trial commenced on November 8, 2016.
In discussing the evidence adduced at the trial, references to the trial transcript are denoted as "Tr." The facts are presented here in the light most favorable to the Defendants.
At approximately 3:40 P.M. on November 4, 2010, Detective Lieutenant James Canner of the Long Beach Police Department was traveling in an unmarked police vehicle northbound onRiverside Boulevard in the "North Park" section of Long Beach. (Tr. 60, 871) The North Park community is populated largely by African-American and Hispanic residents. (Tr. 53, 511-12)
Earlier in his career, Canner had spent seven years as a patrolman in the North Park community. (Tr. 52, 54-55, 873) Throughout that time, he became familiar with the neighborhood and came to know certain of its residents, including one Antonio Webb, with whom he was generally familiar. (Tr. 56, 874) On the date in question, he knew that Webb was wanted by the Long Beach Police Department, specifically an investigating detective named Roarke, in connection with an armed robbery that occurred several days earlier. (Tr. 114, 122)
As he proceeded along Riverside Boulevard, Canner observed an individual walking on the opposite side of the street, also moving in a northerly direction, wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, with the hood pulled over his head, and jeans. (Tr. 63, 874) He believed this individual to be Webb. (Tr. 60, 115, 873-74)
Although Canner knew that Webb stood about six feet tall (Tr. 58, 908), he did not carefully assess this individual's height or weight. Rather, he performed a "quick [visual] overview" from his moving vehicle and concluded that the individual was, in fact, Webb. (Tr. 66-67, 115, 874-75, 915) In this regard, Canner claimed to have gotten a good look at the individual's face, which he learned in the police academy is the most reliable element in identifying a suspect because it is the least likely to change over time. (Tr. 874-75, 870) He also examined the individual's complexion and thin build, and concluded that the individual looked "exactly like" Antonio Webb. (Tr. 880-81, 915)
As it turned out, the individual observed by Canner was the Plaintiff Jesse Parker, Webb's biological brother, with whom Canner had also become generally familiar from his time as a Long Beach police officer. (Tr. 64-65, 908) Physically, Canner could tell the brothers apart and knew, for example, that Parker was shorter than Webb. (Tr. 75, 908). In fact, although five years Webb's senior, police records indicate that Parker is approximately seven inches shorter and 20 pounds lighter than Webb.
Nevertheless, Canner testified that these events unfolded quickly, and he believed Webb to be dangerous. (Tr. 874-75) Therefore, based on his observations of the individual with the gray hooded sweatshirt, Canner sent out a radio transmission requesting that police personnel respond to the location in order to confirm Webb's identity and arrest him. (Tr. 69, 898) To that end, Canner provided the individual's location; his direction of travel; and a physical description, namely, a black male wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and pants. (Tr. 70, 80-81).
He did not, however, identify Webb by name. Evidently, it is standard police practice to omit suspects' names when communicating over the radio because such transmissions can easily be intercepted, thus providing forewarning to individuals sought by police and placing the responding officers in danger. (Tr. 68-69, 114, 881-82) Instead, Canner identified Webb by reference to Detective Roarke's investigation. (Tr. 122, 881, 887, 1003)
The road on which Canner and his suspect were traveling, namely, Riverside Boulevard, terminates at its intersection with East Pine Street. When approaching in a northerly direction, East Pine Street permits only one-way eastbound vehicular traffic. (Tr. 82-83) Thus, when he reached this intersection, Canner was forced to make a right-hand turn with the flow of traffic. (Tr. 82)
However, since he was on foot, the hooded individual turned left onto East Pine Street, where Canner observed him convene with two other individuals, both African-American males appearing to be in their 20s, in the vicinity of an apartment building located on the 90-99 block of East Pine Street. (Tr. 85-86, 203) He sent out another radio transmission with this information. (Tr. 85-86, 883, 892)
Detective Bulik and Officer Azueta were traveling in an unmarked grey police SUV approximately half a mile from Canner's location when they received his radio transmissions. (Tr. 122, 953, 957, 1004) Bulik was driving and Azueta rode in the front passenger seat. (Tr. 129)
Even without hearing Webb's name, Bulik understood that Canner's reference to Det. Roarke's investigation meant that the individual he was describing was Webb. (Tr. 956) Throughout his career as a member of the Long Beach Police Department, Bulik had several interactions with Webb and spoke with him occasionally about neighborhood disturbances and other matters. (Tr. 201, 956-57) Although he did not know Webb's exact height and weight, he was generally familiar with his appearance and, standing 5' 7" himself, believed Webb to be taller than he was. (Tr. 201)
Bulik was also familiar with Jesse...
To continue reading
Request your trial