Sanabria v. Village of Monticello

• Decision Date: 23 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 75 Civ. 1070 (JMC).,75 Civ. 1070 (JMC).
• Citation: 424 F. Supp. 402
• Parties: Benjamin SANABRIA, Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF MONTICELLO, a Municipal Subdivision of the State of New York, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

424 F. Supp. 402

Benjamin SANABRIA, Plaintiff, v. The VILLAGE OF MONTICELLO, a Municipal Subdivision of the State of New York, et al., Defendants.

No. 75 Civ. 1070 (JMC).

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

December 23, 1976.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gerald Orseck, Liberty, N.Y., for plaintiff.

Morris, Duffy, Ivone & Jensen, New York City (John E. Morris, New York City, of counsel), for defendants Community General Hospital and Young Chul Ko.

Appelbaum & Eisenberg, Liberty, N.Y. (Harold J. Bauman, Liberty, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant Village of Monticello.

Weiss & Costa, Monticello, N.Y. (Lawrence E. Lagarenne, Monticello, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant Bernard Blackman.

Aks & Tieger, Monticello, N.Y. (Jacob Aks, Monticello, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant Louis Gonzalez.

Garbarini, Scher & DeCicco, New York City (Leonard Weinstock, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Isidore Greenberg.

John S. McBride, Monticello, N.Y., for defendant Harry Lawrence.

Goldstein & Goldstein, Monticello, N.Y. (Carl P. Goldstein, Monticello, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant John McCormick.

Joseph Gold, Monticello, N.Y., for defendant Walter Ramsey.

Raskin & Rappaport, New York City (Lester Raskin, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Edward McManus.

OPINION AND ORDER

CANNELLA, District Judge:

Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint, and the motions to dismiss interposed by defendants Community General Hospital, Isidore Greenberg and Young Chul Ko are granted. The motions to dismiss the complaint made by Harry Lawrence, John McCormick, Bernard Blackman, Louis Gonzalez, Walter Ramsey and Edward McManus are denied.

The within action was commenced on March 4, 1975 against the Village of Monticello ("Village") and its employees, officers and police officers, Community General Hospital, Young Chul Ko and Isidore S. Greenberg. Plaintiff's complaint makes the following factual allegations:

1. Plaintiff, while intoxicated, was involved in an automobile accident in Monticello, New York at approximately 12:00 midnight on October 21, 1974.

2. As a result of his intoxication, the plaintiff was unable to care for himself.

3. After the accident, he was arrested by police officers employed by the Village of Monticello and taken into their custody.

4. During the accident, plaintiff suffered certain injuries, including a broken neck. Defendant police officers knew that plaintiff had suffered a broken neck.

5. Plaintiff was taken to Community General Hospital, where he was refused treatment and returned to the Monticello jail.

6. He was confined at the jail from 12:40 a. m. until 9:15 a. m. on October 22, 1974 without medical aid or assistance, although his need for such attention and the substantial nature of his injuries were obvious and known to defendant police officers.

7. During this time, plaintiff was physically abused by defendant police officers, seriously and irreversibly aggravating his injuries.

8. As a result of the injuries intentionally caused by defendants' physical abuse, and by the failure to diagnose and promptly treat plaintiff's pre-existing injuries, plaintiff became paralyzed and suffered other serious injuries.

Federal jurisdiction was asserted on the basis of the Civil Rights Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3); diversity of citizenship;¹ and, with respect to defendant Village, the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Thereafter, "The Village of Monticello and its police officers" moved to dismiss the complaint based upon the Court's lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. In its decision of March 3, 1976, this Court concluded that the complaint alleged a valid cause of action under Section 1983 against the defendant police officers, and that the Village of Monticello was subject to jurisdiction as a "pendent party."² Sanabria v. The Village of Monticello, 75 Civ. 1070 (S.D.N.Y. March 3, 1976) (Cannella, J.).

Plaintiff subsequently moved for and was granted leave to amend the complaint to name individually the police officers of the Village of Monticello alleged to have participated in the events giving rise to plaintiff's injuries.³

A slight respite followed, after which the Court was deluged with sundry motions brought by the parties herein. The Court will deal with these motions seriatim.

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS HARRY LAWRENCE, JOHN McCORMICK, BERNARD BLACKMAN, LOUIS GONZALEZ, WALTER RAMSEY AND EDWARD McMANUS TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

In an action brought in federal court under the Civil Rights Act the statute of limitations to be applied is "the most appropriate one provided by state law." Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 462, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1721, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975); accord, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 179-184, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976). Plaintiff maintains that Second Circuit decisions applying the three year limitations period on N.Y.C. P.L.R. § 214(2)⁴ in a federal civil rights case are dispositive of the issue herein. Kaiser v. Cahn, 510 F.2d 282, 284 (2d Cir. 1974); Romer v. Leary, 425 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1970). The Court agrees. Although the defendant police officers take the position that New York General Municipal Law § 50-j, which makes the one-year and ninety-day limitation period of General Municipal Law § 50-i applicable to suits against police officers for negligent acts or torts, is the relevant state statute,⁵ at the time of the incidents involved herein Section 50-j applied only to cities "having a population of one million or more."⁶ Its amendment to include "every city, county, town, village, authority or agency" was effective beginning August 9, 1975, well after plaintiff's cause of action accrued.

Under New York law statutes of limitations are given prospective application unless a contrary intent is clearly indicated. People v. Cohen, 245 N.Y. 419, 421, 157 N.E. 515 (1927); Hastings v. H. M. Byllesby & Co., 265 App.Div. 653, 40 N.Y.S.2d 307 (1st Dep't 1943), aff'd, 293 N.Y. 413, 57 N.E.2d 737 (1944); New York Central R.R. v. Erie R.R., 30 Misc.2d 362, 213 N.Y.S.2d 15, 24 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. County 1961); Ilott v. Deibert, 19 Misc.2d 564, 195 N.Y.S.2d 405 (Sup.Ct. N.Y. County 1959), reversed on other grounds, 11 A.D.2d 980, 207 N.Y.S.2d 991 (1st Dep't 1960). Cf. Kelly v. Yannotti, 4 N.Y.2d 603, 605-06, 176 N.Y.S.2d 637, 640, 152 N.E.2d 69 (1958) (amendment to Civil Practice Act § 592(2) shortening time to move for leave to appeal does not apply to orders entered prior to the effective date). Thus, the former statute of limitations remains applicable to a cause of action that accrued prior to the change in the law. Buckley Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Goldman, 28 A.D.2d 640, 280 N.Y.S.2d 876 (4th Dep't 1967); Mannheimer v. Keehn, 30 Misc.2d 584, 41 N.Y.S.2d 542, 552-53 (Sup.Ct. Monroe County 1943), modified, 268 App.Div. 813, 49 N.Y.S.2d 304, amended, 268 App.Div. 845, 51 N.Y.S.2d 750 (4th Dep't 1944).

Accordingly, the three-year limitation period ordinarily applicable to civil rights actions and not the more specific provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-j controls here. In that plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to name the defendant police officers on March 30, 1976, less than three years after the occurrence of the incidents complained of, the Court finds that the instant action is not barred by the statute of limitations.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO JURISDICTIONALLY AMEND THE COMPLAINT

Jurisdiction over the Defendant Municipality

After the Supreme Court's decision in Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2413, 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), (see note 2, supra), plaintiff moved to further amend the complaint to assert jurisdiction against the Village of Monticello pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). The Village opposes the amendment, and therefore federal jurisdiction over it, contending that plaintiff's claim is not one which "arises under the Constitution" of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Of course, where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000,⁷ a complaint seeking recovery under the Constitution properly invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction over a municipality. Brault v. Town of Milton, 527 F.2d 730, 736 (2d Cir. 1975) (en banc); Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, 523 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 963, 96 S.Ct. 1748, 48 L.Ed.2d 208 (1976); Construction Indus. Ass'n v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897, 903 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); Gray v. Union County Intermediate Educ. Dist., 520 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1975); Calvin v. Conlisk, 520 F.2d 1, 8-10 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 902, 96 S.Ct. 1093, 47 L.Ed.2d 307 (1976); Hanna v. Drobnick, 514 F.2d 393, 398 (6th Cir. 1975); Traylor v. City of Amarillo, 492 F.2d 1156, 1157 n.2 (5th Cir. 1974). See City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 516, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973) (Brennan, J., concurring); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). However, the Village contends that plaintiff's invocation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments is frivolous, done merely to establish federal court jurisdiction. The Court finds this argument unconvincing.

The deprivation of medical care to a prisoner has been considered both a denial of due process as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment, Reeves v. City of Jackson, 532 F.2d 491, 495 (5th Cir. 1976); Fitzke v. Shappell,, 468 F.2d 1072, 1074-77 (6th Cir. 1972); Church v. Hegstrom, 416 F.2d 449, 450 (2d Cir. 1969), and a violation of the eighth amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, Estelle v. Gamble, ___ U.S. ___, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Reeves, supra, 532 F.2d at 495; Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 983, 91 S.Ct. 1202, 28 L.Ed.2d 335 (1971); Church v. Hegstrom, 416...