Thomas v. Kelly

• Decision Date: 23 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09 CIV. 3162(ALC).,09 CIV. 3162(ALC).
• Citation: 903 F.Supp.2d 237
• Parties: Sean THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. Sergeant Stephen KELLY, Shield # 2057, Police Officer Brian Shea, shield # 13360, Police Officer Michael Moreno, shield # 5339, Police Officer Lennox Corlette, shield # 2845, Police Officer Oscar Perez, shield # 7650, Police Officer Michael McAuliffe, shield # 1676, Police Officer Thomas Dekoker, shield # 15364, Police Officer Angela Polancobrito shield # 4956, Sergeant Sasha Rosen shield # 5061, Police Officers Jane/John Doe, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

903 F.Supp.2d 237

Sean THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v.Sergeant Stephen KELLY, Shield # 2057, Police Officer Brian Shea, shield # 13360, Police Officer Michael Moreno, shield # 5339, Police Officer Lennox Corlette, shield # 2845, Police Officer Oscar Perez, shield # 7650, Police Officer Michael McAuliffe, shield # 1676, Police Officer Thomas Dekoker, shield # 15364, Police Officer Angela Polancobrito shield # 4956, Sergeant Sasha Rosen shield # 5061, Police Officers Jane/John Doe, Defendants.

No. 09 CIV. 3162(ALC).

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

Oct. 23, 2012.

David A. Zelman, Law Office of David A. Zelman, Brooklyn, NY, Ryan Heath Asher, Asher & Associates, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Raju Sundaran, Vicki Becker Zgodny, Brian Jeremy Farrar, New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

Defendants Sergeant Stephen Kelly and Officers Michael McAuliffe and Thomas Dekoker (collectively, “defendants”) move for (1) judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to rule 50, Fed.R.Civ.P., (2) for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., or (3) in the alternative, for remittitur of the damages awards. For the reasons given below, the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied. The defendants' motion for a new trial with respect to defendants' liability is also denied. The defendants' motion for a new trial is denied with respect to the compensatory damages on plaintiff's false arrest claim. The defendants' motion for a new trial is granted with respect to the punitive damage award unless plaintiff accepts a remittitur reducing the amount of punitive damages to $325,000.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sean Thomas (“Thomas”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest and excessive use of force against several police officers. He also brought analogous claims under New York State law.¹ A jury trial was commenced on June 25, 2012. On July 9, 2012, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding Kelly liable for false arrest and awarding plaintiff $125,000 in compensatory damages, and finding Kelly, Dekoker, and McAuliffe liable for using excessive force and awarding plaintiff no compensatory damages and $1 in nominal damages. The jury awarded $500,000 in punitive damages against all three of these defendants. The jury found in favor of all other defendants.

It is not disputed that on the night of December 20, 2008, Thomas and his girlfriend, Leticia Marrow (“Marrow”), were arguing in 1748 Eastburn Avenue, Apt. 2—the apartment that Marrow shares with her daughter. Thomas lived in the apartment as well, although his name was not on the lease. That night, Thomas and Marrow were arguing loudly enough that their downstairs neighbor, Ravi Sookraj (“Sookraj”), overheard them. At approximately 2:00 am, Sookraj called 911 and told the 911 operator that there was a “domestic violence dispute” in Marrow's apartment. The parties at trial vigorously disputed what happened next, but by around 3:00 am, Thomas was handcuffed, wrapped in a restraint blanket, strapped to a stretcher, and transported in an ambulance to receive a psychological evaluation at St. Barnabas Hospital, where he was involuntarily sedated. Thomas woke up around 9:00 am in a bed in the emergency room naked and covered only by a sheet. Thomas was free to leave the hospital, and he was not charged with any crime nor did he receive a summons or a desk appearance ticket.

At trial, the parties presented the jury with competing versions of the events that transpired between the time the first officers arrived at Marrow's apartment and when Thomas was taken to the hospital. The defendants' theory of the case was that the officers had probable cause to arrest Thomas under N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 in order to transport him to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation because Thomas's behavior was consistent with that of an emotionally disturbed person who posed a danger to himself or others.² The factual premises of this theory were that: (1) Thomas was behaving irrationally and incoherently; (2) Thomas was violent and was threatening to act violently; and (3) Thomas made a suicidal statement to the officers. Even though Thomas was not arrested for any criminal offense, defendants also argue that they had probable cause to arrest Thomas for (1) trespass, (2) obstruction of governmental administration, (3) disorderly conduct, and (4) menacing.

By contrast, Thomas's theory of the case was that the officers, in particular, Kelly, over-reacted to a rather routine domestic violence dispute between him and Marrow, and in so doing, falsely treated him as a person who was suffering from a mental illness. Thomas denied ever making a suicidal statement, and he and other witnesses testified that Thomas was calm, rational, and non-violent. As such, the jury was asked to resolve a stark factual dispute relying primarily on the credibility of those who testified.

For example, during Thomas's initial encounter with Sergeant Kelly, which was before Thomas was arrested and deemed by Kelly to be an emotionally disturbed person, Kelly and Dekoker described Thomas as “screaming” and “incoherent,” (Kelly Tr. 54:2–3, Dekoker Tr. 26:23), whereas Thomas said he was “pretty calm” and “cool.” (Thomas Tr. 15:11.) Sookraj, a neutral witness, overheard the conversation between Thomas and Kelly and testified that Thomas spoke to Kelly with a “normal” tone of voice without using any profanity. (Sookraj Tr. 10:24–11:3.) It was during this admittedly brief conversation where Thomas allegedly made the suicidal threat. Kelly testified that Thomas “asked me to kill him” or “shoot” him. (Kelly Tr. 25:15–17.) Similarly, Dekoker testified that heard Thomas say to Kelly, “[Y]ou are going to have to shoot me. Shoot me.” (Dekoker Tr. 27:5–6.) Thomas admitted to making a similar-sounding statement, but denied ever making a suicidal threat:

So, at this time I'm surrounded now. I don't know how many but it is enough officers I'm surrounded by. I'm looking and feeling intimidated and now, like, surrounded by officers and I was like all right, I believe I told him, I said if you think you're going to beat me up or something you're going to have to kill me because you're not going to beat me up in the streets or nothing like that. No, you're not.

(Thomas Tr. 15:19–25.) Crucially, Kelly made his “final determination” to take Thomas into custody only after this statement was made, which Kelly interpreted to be a suicidal threat. (Kelly Tr. 25:15–17.)

Thomas testified that he was then “rushed” by the officers, whereupon Kelly kneed him in the face. (Thomas Tr. 16:1–7, 17:2–3.) According to Thomas, he turned away and grabbed onto a nearby fence, but the officers were “pulling me, tugging on me, yanking on me” and that he was being “hit all over.” (Thomas Tr. 17:5–15.) Thomas testified that when he finally let go of the fence he was handcuffed and then “dragg[ed]” up the block, with one of the officers pulling on his hair. Sookraj watched as the officers took Thomas up the block and heard Thomas screaming “get off my hair.” (Sookraj Tr. 17:5–6.)

There was also evidence that Thomas was treated for a fractured hand at the hospital. Thomas's expert witness testified that his injury was consistent with Sookraj's testimony that while Thomas was holding the fence, he observed an officer repeatedly hit Thomas's right hand with what an object that “might have been a flashlight.” (Sookraj Tr. 15:10–18.) The jury was able to conclude, based on photographic evidence, that Dekoker was the one who struck Thomas in the hand.³

In contrast, Sergeant Kelly and Officer Dekoker steadfastly denied that they or any of the officers jumped Thomas, pulled his hair, or struck him anywhere on his hands, body, or legs. (Dekoker Tr. 31:21–32:3, 57:11–22.) The only physical force that was used, Kelly said, was to pull Thomas off the fence. (Kelly Tr. 56:25–57:12.) Dekoker denied ever striking Thomas's hand with any object. He explained that what appeared to be a “shiny or metallic” object was the silver reflective straps on his ski gloves. (Dekoker Tr. 31:4–15.)

The parties also told different versions of what happened once Thomas was handcuffed and brought up the street. Thomas testified that the officers brought him “behind a car in the snow by some garbage.” (Thomas Tr. 19:21.) According to Thomas, the officers held him down in the snow, laying head-down, for about forty-five minutes while, among other things, one of the officers stood on the crown of his head and others stood on his legs:

I was on the floor. There was hitting going on—because I'm on the floor, I can't see nothing because my head is, you know, his foot is on my head so I can't turn my [head] I have people on my legs so I felt a few kicks. One officer, he was kicking snow in my face. And I don't know if it was intentional or whatever, he was kicking snow in my face and he did kick me in my face.

(Thomas Tr. 24:19–25.) The same officer who kicked snow in his face, Thomas said, also “verbally tormented” him while he was on the ground:

The coat I had on that evening, it had an Obama patch on it so I believe the officer must have saw it. He said, what are you doing? Sucking Obama's dick? You think he's going to save you? So, I cursed him out a little bit after that statement and he leans over in my face he said, that's why we're going to rape your girlfriend when you leave. I told him, if you rape my girlfriend you're going to be a dead as[s].

(Thomas Tr. 23:5–12.)

On the witness stand, Kelly denied ever saying anything “vulgar or derogatory” to Thomas and emphasized that he would “never tolerate such misbehavior or misconduct from anybody, any subordinate or any command.” (Kelly Tr. 39:3–5, 61:2–3.) Kelly and Dekoker each testified that they had to place Thomas on the ground because he was kicking at the officers and that they placed Thomas “on his side” because...