Pipitone v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: Nos. 06–CV–145 RJDJMA,06–CV–2864 RJDJMA,06–CV–2843 RJDJMA,07–CV–2189 RJDJMA.,06–CV–2954 RJDJMA,06–CV–3591 RJDJMA,06–CV–3101 RJDJMA,s. 06–CV–145 RJDJMA
• Citation: 57 F.Supp.3d 173
• Parties: Pauline PIPITONE, as the Administrator of the Estate of Nicholas Guido, Deceased, and Pauline Pipitone, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. Frances Bishop, as the Administrator of the Estate of James Bishop, Deceased, and Frances Bishop, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants. Susan Boriello, as the Administrator of the Estate of Bartholemew Boriello, Deceased, and Susan Boriello, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants. Mary Ann Di Lapi and Salvador Di Lapi, as the Proposed Administrators of the Estate of Anthony Di Lapi, Deceased, and Mary Ann Di Lapi and Salvador Di Lapi, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants. Rachael Leah Greenwald, as the Administrator of the Estate of Israel Greenwald, Deceased, and Rachael Leah Greenwald, Michal Greenwald, and Yael Greenwald, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants. Anna Lino, as the Administrator of the Estate of Edward Lino, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants. Tina Morris, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Otto Heindel, Deceased, and Tina Morris, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

57 F.Supp.3d 173

Pauline PIPITONE, as the Administrator of the Estate of Nicholas Guido, Deceased, and Pauline Pipitone, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

Frances Bishop, as the Administrator of the Estate of James Bishop, Deceased, and Frances Bishop, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Susan Boriello, as the Administrator of the Estate of Bartholemew Boriello, Deceased, and Susan Boriello, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Mary Ann Di Lapi and Salvador Di Lapi, as the Proposed Administrators of the Estate of Anthony Di Lapi, Deceased, and Mary Ann Di Lapi and Salvador Di Lapi, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Rachael Leah Greenwald, as the Administrator of the Estate of Israel Greenwald, Deceased, and Rachael Leah Greenwald, Michal Greenwald, and Yael Greenwald, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Anna Lino, as the Administrator of the Estate of Edward Lino, Deceased, Plaintiff

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Tina Morris, as the Administrator of the Estate of John Otto Heindel, Deceased, and Tina Morris, Individually, Plaintiffs

v.The City of New York, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 06–CV–145 RJDJMA

06–CV–2843 RJDJMA

06–CV–2954 RJDJMA

06–CV–3101 RJDJMA

06–CV–2864 RJDJMA

06–CV–3591 RJDJMA

07–CV–2189 RJDJMA.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 30, 2014.

Mark A. Longo, Law Offices of Mark A. Longo, Steven J. Weissler, Longo & D'Apice, Brooklyn, NY, for Plaintiff.

Matthew J. Modafferi, Alison G. Moe, Brooke Allyson Birnbaum, Cecilia Ann Silver, Shawn Fabian, Steven Mark Silverberg, New York City Law Department, Michael Chestnov, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Seth D. Eichenholtz, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Barry K. Myrvold, New York City Law Department, Special Federal Litigation, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

DEARIE, District Judge.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, two senior NYPD detectives—Louis Eppolito and Steven Caracappa—committed a series of murders on behalf of organized crime. They also leaked police information that led directly to several additional murders. Both men have since been convicted of federal criminal charges. See United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.2008). In these consolidated civil cases, the relatives of seven victims seek redress from Eppolito, Caracappa, and New York City pursuant to § 1983 and various state laws. The gravamen of the claims against the City is the NYPD's inexplicable failure to discipline Eppolito in 1985, when he was caught red-handed passing confidential police documents to Rosario Gambino.

The City now moves for summary judgment. The Di Lapi plaintiffs cross-move for summary judgment on their state law respondeat superior claim. Given the decades that have passed since the murders, the Court is called upon to address the timeliness of the claims in addition to substantive issues of municipal liability. For the reasons set forth below, the City's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the federal claims but granted as to the state law claims. The motion brought by the Di Lapi plaintiffs is denied.¹

BACKGROUND

The following narrative, drawn from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements and the exhibits proffered in support of those statements, sets forth the relevant background. Most of the facts are not in dispute, but the record is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.²

A. The Gambino Documents

Eppolito and Caracappa joined the NYPD in 1969.³ D ¶¶ 308, 330.⁴ By the early 1980s, both were detectives. D ¶¶ 312, 346. Eppolito was assigned to the detective squad in the 62nd precinct. D ¶ 314. Caracappa was assigned to the Major Case Squad, an elite unit with citywide authority to investigate significant criminal activity, including organized crime. D ¶¶ 349–52.

In April 1984, the FBI discovered thirty-six confidential NYPD Intelligence Division reports at the home of Rosario Gambino, a mobster who was under indictment for heroin trafficking. D ¶ 355, P ¶ 21. The reports included diagrams of family trees, surveillance reports, and the criminal records of reputed organized crime figures. Ex. 26 at 4 n. 2. NYPD Internal Affairs investigators interviewed Detective Sweeney from the Intelligence Division, who told them that he had given the Gambino documents to Eppolito because Eppolito requested them for the 62nd precinct's files. P ¶ 26. The investigators also interviewed Eppolito's supervisors, who denied having given him permission to go to the Intelligence Division. The sign-in logs at the Intelligence Division showed that Eppolito had visited the Intelligence Division once in the previous two years (on December 13, 1983) and that he was unaccompanied. P ¶¶ 28, 42.

The FBI and NYPD Internal Affairs determined that the reports found in Gambino's home were photocopies that had been made on the 62nd precinct's photocopier. P ¶ 27. They also found Eppolito's fingerprints on the photocopies. Because fingerprints cannot be photocopied, see P ¶ 35, the presence of Eppolito's fingerprints on the documents found in Gambino's home provided compelling evidence that Eppolito had made the copies and leaked them to Gambino. Despite this evidence, the Office of the State Special Prosecutor (“OSSP”), the entity responsible for prosecuting officers accused of misconduct, declined to initiate criminal proceedings against Eppolito. D ¶ 368.

In November 1984, Internal Affairs investigators questioned Eppolito under oath in a General Order 15 (“GO 15”) interview. ⁵

P ¶ 29. Eppolito told the investigators that his supervisors had given him permission to go to the Intelligence Division to show photographs to a witness in the Alberto Veriale murder investigation. P ¶ 41. This statement was contradicted by the statements given by Eppolito's supervisors and by the witness logs, which showed that Eppolito was alone when he visited the Intelligence Division. Eppolito also told the investigators that Sweeney had asked him to take the Gambino reports to help the Intelligence Division locate Gambino. P ¶ 37. This statement was contradicted by Sweeney's account. Finally, Eppolito denied making copies of the documents and said that he had not touched them since the day he took them from the Intelligence Division. P ¶ 30–43. These statements, of course, were contradicted by the presence of Eppolito's fingerprints on the photocopies found in Gambino's home.

B. The Disciplinary Hearing

Based on the fingerprint evidence and the obvious discrepancies between Eppolito's GO 15 interview and the statements of his supervisors and Detective Sweeney, Internal Affairs concluded that there was sufficient proof to refer the matter to the Department Advocate's Office, which is responsible for filing and trying disciplinary cases against police officers. P ¶¶ 51–52, 60; D ¶¶ 382–83. The Department Advocate's Office brought formal charges against Eppolito, and he was suspended without pay on November 27, 1984. P ¶¶ 13, 55.

The allegations against Eppolito received front page attention in the New York Times and the New York Daily News and were covered by several other news organizations. P ¶¶ 6–7, 56–57. This was the first major scandal of NYPD Commissioner Ben Ward's tenure. For obvious reasons, it was the talk of the department. P ¶ 9. Caracappa was the first to alert Eppolito to the news reports and had coffee with Eppolito nearly every day while he was suspended. P ¶ 211.

The disciplinary hearing was held on April 4, 1985 before Deputy Trial Commissioner Hugh Mo. These hearings were ordinarily conducted along the lines of a bench trial: the parties submitted evidence, examined and cross-examined witnesses, and made closing statements to the court. P ¶ 61. The Eppolito hearing, however, was highly unusual—particularly given the gravity of the charges.

First off, the case was tried by a junior lawyer, Sergeant William Medican. High-profile matters like the allegations against Eppolito were typically handled by senior attorneys. According to Mo, a supervisor should have been “intimately involved” in a case involving the potential termination of a police officer. P ¶ 130. Yet there were no senior attorneys present at the hearing to oversee or guide Medican. P ¶ 132.

Also unusual was the Department Advocate's Office's decision, on the morning of the hearing, to try the case on stipulations rather than introduce live testimony. The transcript of the hearing suggests that the parties agreed to the stipulations at an off-the-record bench conference with Deputy Trial Commissioner Mo immediately before the hearing. P ¶ 72; see also Ex. SSSS (disciplinary hearing transcript). The strange nature of this decision is evident from Mo's statements at his deposition: he did not recall the off-the-record conference, and instead was confident that he “would not have walked into the trial room on the same day in which the parties announced that the evidence will be stipulated.” P ¶ 72.

Medican, as a junior attorney, lacked authority to enter into evidentiary stipulations on his own. They had to have been approved by his supervisor. P ¶¶ 74–75. At the time, Medican's supervisors were John Walsh and William Flack. Yet Walsh and Flack each stated, at their respective depositions, that the other was responsible for the Eppolito matter. P ¶¶ 121–23. Neither Flack nor Walsh nor Medican nor Mo were able to recall why the Department Advocate's Office agreed to try the case on stipulations. P ¶¶ 118–29.

While the circumstances of the decision to try the case on stipulations remain murky, it is abundantly clear that trying disciplinary charges of such gravity on stipulations was well outside the normal course of business. The Internal Affairs investigator responsible for the case and his supervisor both expected the hearing to proceed in the normal manner. Indeed, the investigator sat outside the hearing room during the...