Payne v. Jones
Decision Date | 15 February 2013 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 09–5201–cv. |
Citation | 711 F.3d 85 |
Parties | James Edward PAYNE, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Officer Brandon JONES, Defendant–Cross Claimant–Appellant, City of Utica, Defendant–Cross Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Frank Policelli, Utica, NY, for Appellee.
Patrick G. Radel, Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore LLP, Utica, N.Y. (Michael E. Getnick, on the brief), for Cross Claimant–Appellant.
Linda S. Fatata, CorporationCounsel, Utica, N.Y. (Armond J. Festine, Assistant CorporationCounsel, on the brief), for Cross Defendant–Appellant.
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, McLAUGHLIN and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.
DefendantBrandon Jones, a former officer in the Utica Police Department, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York(Hurd, J.), entered pursuant to a jury verdict, awarding compensatory and punitive damages to PlaintiffJames Edward Payne on his claims against Jones of excessive force and battery.Jones contends that the district court erred in denying a continuance to accommodate his inability to attend the first three days of the five-day trial due to a medical emergency.Jones also argues that the $300,000 punitive damages award is excessive.
We conclude that the district court did not exceed its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance because the court's decision was neither arbitrary nor prejudicial to Jones's defense.On the other hand, we agree with Jones that the punitive damages award of $300,000 is excessive, and we conclude that a reduced award of $100,000 would more accurately reflect the severity of Jones's misconduct.We therefore remand for a new trial on punitive damages, unless Payne agrees to remit $200,000 and accept a punitive damages award totaling $100,000.1
We view the facts in the light most favorable to Payne, who was the prevailing party at the jury trial below.SeeJacques v. DiMarzio, Inc.,386 F.3d 192, 195(2d Cir.2004).Payne is a decorated Vietnam War veteran who suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his military service.In the early morning hours of September 11, 2007, Payne was taken by his wife and son to the emergency room at Faxton–St.Luke's Healthcare hospital after accidentally cutting his thumb.Payne was combative and disoriented when he arrived at the emergency room.
Because of Payne's combativeness, responding officers Brandon Jones and John Abel placed him under arrest pursuant to N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, which authorizes the arrest of a person who appears to be mentally ill and acts in a manner likely to result in serious harm to himself or others.The officers called for an ambulance to transport Payne to St. Elizabeth Medical Center, the nearby hospital assigned to receive people arrested under § 9.41.While a paramedic was examining Payne, Jones slapped the side of Payne's head.After a struggle in which Payne resisted the officers' efforts to handcuff him and place him on a gurney, Payne was loaded into the ambulance and taken to St. Elizabeth.Jones followed the ambulance in his squad car.
At St. Elizabeth, Payne resisted Jones's efforts to move him from the ambulance gurney into an individual room in the emergency room's mental health unit.Jones wrapped Payne in a bear hug and pushed him into the room.As Jones was placing Payne on the bed, he noticed Payne's Marine Corps tattoos and said “Marines are pussies.”In response, Payne kicked Jones in the groin area.Jones reacted by punching Payne in the face and neck seven to ten times and kneeing him in the back several times.Payne, who was still handcuffed, defended himself by putting his hands up to cover his face and rolling on the bed to turn his back toward Jones.A nurse rushed forward and grabbed Jones, who then stopped punching Payne.The attack lasted 30 seconds or less.A doctor examined Payne and found that his face was bloody and swollen, and that his upper back was reddened.Payne later testified at trial that the beating aggravated his existing back pain and his post traumatic stress disorder.There was no evidence of any other injury.
The doctor reported Jones to the Utica Police Department, which conducted an investigation into the attack.The Department's Professional Standards Unit found that Jones had committed an egregious assault on Payne and had lied about the incident to police investigators.Ultimately, Jones was terminated.
On February 7, 2008, Payne brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against Jones, the City of Utica, Abel, and the chief of the Utica Police Department.Payne alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Jones used excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Payne also alleged that Jones had committed a battery in violation of state law.A jury trial was scheduled to begin on September 14, 2009.
At about 5:00 a.m. on September 14, Jones checked in to St. Luke's hospital complaining of bleeding and an inability to control his bowels.Jones's attorney, Michael Getnick, Esq., informed the court that Jones would be kept under observation for “at least two days,” and that surgery was a possibility.Payne v. Jones,No. 09–5201, Joint Appendix (“JA”) 66 (Aug. 16, 2010).Getnick asked the court to delay the trial indefinitely to “wait to see what the doctor's prognosis is, and what the schedule is to see if he will be confined, and if so, for how many days ....”JA 67.Getnick acknowledged that, at that point, his only source of information was Jones's wife, but he offered to provide a treating doctor's affidavit describing his client's condition.Payne's counsel opposed a continuance, asserting that Jones would not be prejudiced if the trial proceeded in his absence.The district court decided to proceed with jury selection and opening statements, but it delayed the start of testimony until the next day, September 15, to give Getnick an opportunity to submit a medical affidavit.Getnick then asked the court to inform the venire members that Jones was in the hospital.The court declined to mention the hospitalization without evidence that Jones was indeed at the hospital.Instead, the court told the venire members that Jones JA 69.
After the jury was impaneled and the opening statements were delivered, the court dismissed the jury for the day.Getnick then presented the court with a doctor's affidavit, which described Jones's illness and indicated that Jones might recover sufficiently to be able to attend the trial by September 15 or 16 so long as he continued to improve and did not require surgery.See JA 89.The district court stated that the trial would resume the following morning, September 15, in the absence of further updates about Jones's status.
Before calling in the jury on the morning of September 15, the court inquired into Jones's availability.Jones's attorney reported that he did not think that his client would be able to attend the trial that day because “the doctors are not in agreement” about whether Jones would need surgery.JA 91.Getnick continued: JA 91.The court acknowledged this information and summoned the jury.Payne began presenting his case.He called, among others, the doctor and the nurse who had witnessed the attack at St. Elizabeth to testify.
The next day, September 16, the court again asked for an update on Jones before summoning the jury.Jones's attorney said his client was expected to be released that afternoon or evening, and would be present either September 17 or 18.He said that he was “hopeful that [Jones] will be in court and ready to testify on”September 18, as long as Jones “has been weaned off the medication that he is on.”JA 136.The district court again decided to proceed with the trial.Payne called a few more witnesses and rested.The parties and the court then agreed that, in view of Jones's unavailability, Abel would put on his defense first.The court explained to the jury that Abel would be presenting his defense out of order because JA 169.The court then told the jury that, if Jones was still unable to testify on September 18, Jones's attorney would be given permission to read the entire transcript of Jones's pretrial deposition.
Jones was present at the trial the following day, September 17.The court introduced him to the jury members, reminding them that, JA 196.That same day, Jones took the stand to testify in his own defense.The court prohibited Getnick from asking about the nature and extent of Jones's illness, explaining that JA 208.Getnick then asked that Jones be allowed to say that he had been in the hospital, but the court denied this request on the ground that mentioning the hospital might cause the jury to feel sympathy for Jones and unfairly prejudice Payne.After summoning the jury, the district court explained: ...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
... ... Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192, 205 (2d Cir.2014) (quoting Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85, 97–98 (2d Cir.2013)). Awards for mental and emotional distress are inherently speculative. There is no objective way to ... ...
-
Dancy v. McGinley
... ... at 125, 120 S.Ct. 673 ; see United States v. Jones , 149 F.3d 364, 370 (5th Cir. 1998) ("[W]hen the officer's actions are such that any [individual], whether innocent or guilty, would be preoccupied ... Long Island R.R. Co. , 761 F.3d 192, 204 (2d Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Payne v. Jones , 711 F.3d 85, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) ). In determining whether a compensatory damage award is excessive, we consider "amounts awarded in ... ...
-
Kidis v. Reid
... ... Payne v. Jones , 711 F.3d 85, 106 (2d Cir. 2013). $100,000/$174,000* ($75,000 in compensatory damages on another claim): A court officer, after helping ... ...
-
Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
... ... Long Island R.R. Co., 761 F.3d 192, 205 (2d Cir.2014) (quoting Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85, 97–98 (2d Cir.2013)). Awards for mental and emotional distress are inherently speculative. There is no objective way to ... ...
-
Why Courts Should Not Defer To Phantom Factual Findings When Reviewing Punitive Damages Awards For Excessiveness
...bearing on the amount of punitive damages. A decision by the Second Circuit exemplifies the countervailing position. In Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013), the court expressed grave concerns about the administration of punitive damages and carved out an aggressive role for reviewing......
-
XXI. Monetary Relief
...under common-law review to determine whether an award of punitive damages is so high as to shock the judicial conscience. Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013).[450] . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003).[451] . Id. at 419 (quoting BMW of N. Am. v. Gore......