Stanganelli v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | 13-CV-5520 (SJF)(AKT) |
| Parties | DOMENICK STANGANELLI and MICHELLE STANGANELLI, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, JUSTIN ECKERT, and CHARLES E. FLUDD, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
On October 7, 2013, Domenick Stanganelli and Michelle Stanganelli1 commenced this action against the United States of America ("U.S."), the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), Justin Eckert ("Eckert") and Charles E. Fludd ("Fludd") under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) ("FTCA"), and New York state law. Docket Entry No. 1 ("Complaint" or "Compl.").2 Plaintiff Domenick Stanganelli ("plaintiff") has moved for partial summary judgment on his claim pursuant to Section 205-e of New York State General Municipal Law ("Section 205-e")3 [Docket Entry No. 42 ("Motion forSummary Judgment")], which is opposed only by defendant U.S. [Docket Entry No. 39] and not by defendant Fludd. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to defendant U.S. and granted as to defendant Fludd.
On October 2, 2012, at approximately 11:35 a.m. on Route 878, approximately 1,000 feet south of Rock Hall Road in the Village of Lawrence in Nassau County, New York, plaintiff, while working in the course of his official duties as a Nassau County police officer, was involved in an accident with defendants' motor vehicles. Compl. ¶ 30-35; Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 1-2, 37; [Docket Entry No. 42-5 (Gereg Decl., Ex. E (Deposition of Domenick Stanganelli ("Pl. Dep.")), at 5, 46)]. The accident occurred approximately one-eighth (1/8) of a mile north of where the roadway merged into two northbound lanes. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 90; Docket Entry No. 42-6 (Gereg Decl., Ex. F (Deposition of Justin Eckert ("Eckert Dep.")), at 65).
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was on duty, performing car stops for speeding vehicles. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 38; Pl. Dep., at 37, 47. Traffic enforcement was part of plaintiff's work duties and he used a radar gun to assist with traffic enforcement. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 40-41; Pl. Dep. at 25, 30. Plaintiff testified that on the morning of the accident, he left his precinct at approximately 8:00 a.m. and proceeded to Route 878 in Lawrence to perform speed enforcementwork on Route 878, where he had performed speed enforcement at least three (3) prior times. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 51-52; Pl. Dep., at 49, 51. Plaintiff testified that, upon arriving at the general area between 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., he formulated a mental checklist of all issues which would be potentially addressed in court if his findings were challenged, ensured the speed limit sign was visible to anyone passing it, and drove the same path that potential violators would be driving. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 53-56; Pl. Dep., at 49-50. Plaintiff further testified that after performing an internal calibration test on the radar unit and calibrating and focusing the unit using a tuning fork, he began monitoring speeds. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 57-60; Pl. Dep., at 55-56. Plaintiff testified that the radar was not used to determine the violator's speed, but rather was used to confirm plaintiff's estimate of the violator's speed of travel. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 68; Pl. Dep., at 57-58. Plaintiff testified that if the radar unit is aimed at a group of vehicles, it will give an officer two different readings and that if two cars are traveling in the same lane, the radar will capture the first vehicle, but not the cars behind it. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 131-32; Pl. Dep., at 62, 64. The radar device used by plaintiff on October 2, 2012 did not provide printouts of vehicle speeds that it captured. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 129; Pl. Dep., at 58.
Plaintiff testified that to capture speeding motorists he used a method referred to as "step out" in which the police officer is stationary and the speeding vehicle is coming towards the police officer. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 70-71, Pl. Dep., at 37. Plaintiff testified that he would monitor the speeds from a position in front of his car, which was parked on the shoulder of the roadway, and then would step into the roadway to wave a speed violator to pull over. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 61, 63-65; Pl. Dep., at 56, 60, 69, 76-77 & Ex. A; Docket Entry No. 42-9 (Gereg Decl., Ex. I (Photographs)). Plaintiff testified that the lights and sirens of his patrol car were not on continuously when the car was on the shoulder but would be turned on periodically whenplaintiff pulled someone over. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 62, 67; Pl. Dep., at 61. Plaintiff further testified that immediately prior to being hit, the lights and sirens of his vehicle were not on. Pl. Dep., at 61. Plaintiff testified that from the time he arrived at the scene until just prior to the accident, he issued twelve (12) to fifteen (15) speeding tickets. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 78; Pl. Dep. at 53.
On October 2, 2012, Eckert was operating a Chevrolet Equinox motor vehicle bearing New York State license plate number EXN9889 (the "Equinox" or "Eckert's vehicle") with the knowledge, consent and/or permission of the DOJ/DEA, the registered owner of the vehicle. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 8-9, 12; Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22-24; Docket Entry No. 42-3 (Gereg Aff., Ex. C ("Def. U.S. Answer") ¶¶ 20, 22-24); Eckert Dep., at 17-18. Prior to the accident, Eckert had driven for approximately ten (10) minutes from his home to the Atlantic Beach bridge, then passed through the tollbooth located after the bridge, and intended to head towards the Belt Parkway. Pl. 56.1. Stmt. ¶¶ 79-80; Eckert Dep., at 43, 57-58. Eckert testified that the traffic conditions were "medium" as he crossed the Atlantic Bridge and until the time of the accident. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 160, 164; Eckert Dep., at 54, 61, 83. After the tollbooth, Eckert proceed to the leftmost lane. Pl. 56.1. Stmt. ¶ 86; Eckert Dep., at 60. Eckert accelerated as he was traveling from the tollbooths to the point where the roadway merged into two northbound lanes. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 89; Eckert Dep., at 62.
Eckert testified that he not know what the speed limit was in that area or the highest posted speed on the roadway, but knew that it changed multiple times before reaching the Belt Parkway. Pl. 56.1. Stmt. ¶¶ 80, 92. 161; Eckert Dep., at 54, 57-58, 70. Eckert was not sure what his highest rate of speed was while traveling from the tollbooths to the point where the roadway merged to two northbound lanes and did not recall looking at his dashboard to approximate hisspeed. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 88, 93; Eckert Dep., at 62, 71. Eckert testified that he did not know if posted speed limit signs applied to federal officers. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 94; Eckert Dep., at 87. A speed limit sign located approximately one quarter (1/4) of a mile south of the accident scene indicated the speed limit was thirty (30) miles per hour, the village speed limit. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 82-84; Pl. Dep., at 75-76. Eckert testified that his foot was on the gas pedal until he saw the car in front of him slowing down, at which point, he started to slow down and noticed plaintiff waiving his hands in the air high over his head from side to side though Eckert did not know why plaintiff was waiving his hands. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 97, 99-101; Eckert Dep., at 72-73, 106. Eckert testified that as he stepped on his brakes and was slowing down in the left lane, his vehicle was hit in the rear by Fludd's vehicle. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 111; Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 147, 176-178; Fludd Dep., at 12; Eckert Dep., at 74-76, 77, 79.
On October 2, 2012, Fludd was operating a 2004 Audi A-8 (the "Audi" or "Fludd's vehicle") on Route 878. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 139; Docket Entry No. 42-7 (Gereg Decl., Ex. G (Deposition of Charles Fludd ("Fludd Dep.")), at 6, 8). After merging onto 878, Fludd was behind a white "box truck" in the right lane. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 140; Fludd Dep., at 11. Fludd testified that he was "speeding up" to get on the highway when he first entered Route 878 and that as he got closer to the box truck, the box truck started to slow down. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 149; Fludd Dep., at 17. Fludd merged into the left lane and started to pass the box truck as it slowed down and as he was passing it, he noticed a grey Equinox stopped in the highway in the left lane. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 141-42; Fludd Dep., at 11. Fludd testified that when he passed the box truck, he could not see the Equinox because it was stopped at a curve, and could not see what was on the other side of the curve until he got around the boxtruck. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 148, 150; Fludd Dep., at 12, 18, 24. Fludd testified that the first time he saw the Equinox, it was stopped in the left lane, and that while he was behind the box truck, he was unable to see the Equinox or any traffic in the left lane. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 151-52; Fludd Dep., at 24-25. The grey Equinox did not move at all and Fludd swerved back into the right lane to avoid hitting the Equinox. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 106; Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 143-44; Fludd Dep., at 11-13, 25. Fludd testified that he thought he cut off the box truck in order to avoid hitting the Equinox. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 155; Fludd Dep., at 28. As Fludd swerved into the right lane, he nicked the Equinox and then plaintiff. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 107; Fludd Dep., at 12-13.
Fludd testified that he observed a police officer in the right lane "jumping up and down" (Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 145; Fludd Dep., at 12), but that he did not see the police officer in the road until he was about to hit him. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 154; Fludd Dep., at 25. Fludd testified that he thought the driver of the Equinox and the police officer were working together to stop the box truck. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial