Williams v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 05 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 12–CV–6805 (VEC).,12–CV–6805 (VEC).
• Citation: 121 F.Supp.3d 354
• Parties: Diana WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

121 F.Supp.3d 354

Diana WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.

No. 12–CV–6805 (VEC).

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

Signed Aug. 5, 2015.

Andrew Rozynski, Philip Marcel Black, Eisenberg & Baum, Eric Baum, Simon, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, Leah Wiederhorn, Rankin & Taylor, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Camiel S. Richards, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Mark David Zuckerman, NYC Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, District Judge.

This case arises from the arrest and overnight detention of a deaf woman by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"). New York City takes the extraordinary position that, even though the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") has been the law of the land for twenty-five years, it has no obligation to provide any accommodation to the hearing-impaired at the time of an arrest, even if doing so could easily be accomplished without endangering the officers or the public safety and without interfering in the lawful execution of the officers' duties. For the reasons that follow, the Court disagrees that the City's responsibilities to the hearing-impaired are so limited.

On September 11, 2011, Plaintiff Diana Williams, who is deaf,¹ was arrested and detained overnight by the NYPD. Def. Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Def. 56.1 Stmt.") ¶¶ 1–2, Dkt. 61. At no time from the police officers' initial on-the-street interaction with Plaintiff, when they concluded that probable cause existed for her arrest, until her release from NYPD custody almost 24 hours later, did the NYPD provide Plaintiff with an American Sign Language ("ASL") interpreter or any auxiliary communication aid.² Def. Response to Pl. Local Rule 56.1 Counter–Statement of Facts ("Def. 56.1 Resp.") ¶ 67, Dkt. 77. Plaintiff alleges that the City is liable: pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I); for discrimination based on her disability (Count II)³ ; for common law false arrest (Count III); and for common law assault and battery (Count IV). Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29–62.⁴ The City moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims, "except for her discrimination claims while she was detained at the NYPD's 122nd Precinct and Staten Island Central Booking." Def. Mem. at 1, Dkt. 63. For the reasons the follow, the City's motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2011, Plaintiff and her husband Chris Williams owned property on Staten Island; Mr. Williams resided in the basement, and two upstairs rooms were rented to Lorena White and Nicole Sabella. Pl. Local Rule 56.1 Response to Def. Statement of Facts ("Pl. 56.1 Resp.") ¶¶ 3–4. Mr. Williams, who is deaf and communicates primarily through ASL, can speak and read lips to some degree, and he can read and write English. Rozynski Decl. Ex. D ("C. Williams Dep.") at 10, 12, 14–15, Dkt. 66–4. The tenant Lorena White is also deaf, but she can read and write English. C. Williams Dep. at 59. The other tenant, Nicole Sabella, hears normally and can communicate using ASL. Rozynski Decl. Ex. C ("Sabella Dep.") at 28, Dkt. 66–3; C. Williams Dep. at 38.

When White and Sabella fell behind on their rent, the Williamses notified them by letter that they would have to vacate the property by September 11, 2011. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 7. White, who had a history of aggressive behavior, responded to the letter with threats to Mr. Williams and made false complaints about him to the police. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8. In an attempt to avoid any problems during White's departure, the Williamses, using a video relay service, called the NYPD at 9:15 a.m. on September 11 to request a police presence at the residence. Id. ¶¶ 9, 14, 16. The police did not appear as requested. Id. ¶ 33.

The Williamses' prediction that White's departure would not be without drama proved accurate, but, by all accounts, it was much ado about nothing. At some point that morning, the Plaintiff's dog ran into White's bedroom, and Plaintiff followed to retrieve him. D. Williams Dep. at 97. She bent down to pick him up, and White was "in [her] face" when she stood. Id. Plaintiff's brother, David Rivera, who was also present, said that at that point White "lost her temper." Rozynski Decl. Ex. E ("Rivera Dep.") at 59, Dkt. 66–5.⁵ Plaintiff testified that White "got in [her] face," but never touched her. D. Williams Dep. at 99. She said that she reached her hand out toward White to "give [her] some space" and "get [her] balance," and that it was "possible" that she touched White in doing so, but if she did "it was very gently and very fast." Id.⁶ Rivera testified that he did not see any physical contact between the women. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 25; Rivera Dep. at 58–59. As Rivera described the scene, White angrily signed at Plaintiff as Plaintiff backed away from White with her dog in her arms before retreating. Rivera Dep. at 59. When the dust settled, Plaintiff had a scratch on her chin, which she attributed to the dog. Rozynski Decl. Ex. I ("D. William Aff.") ¶ 1, Dkt. 66–9. Mr. Williams and Sabella testified that neither Plaintiff nor White had any visible physical injuries, and Rivera testified he did not observe any injuries on Plaintiff. Pl. Local Rule 56.1 Counter–Statement of Facts ("Pl. 56.1 Stmt.") ¶ 57; accord Sabella Dep. at 66; Rivera Dep. at 87; C. Williams Dep. at 98.

Shortly thereafter, White went outside to greet her boyfriend, Alendi, who had arrived at the residence. Rivera Dep. at 59.⁷ Alendi can hear and communicate orally. Def. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 17. Rivera tried to physically block Alendi from getting inside the house, at which point Alendi made a hand gesture that Rivera and Mr. Williams interpreted to mean that Alendi had a gun. Rivera Dep. at 60; C. Williams Dep. at 78. Rivera and Mr. Williams went across the street to Rivera's house to make a second call to the police. C. Williams Dep. at 78–79; Zukerman Ex. I. Again using a video relay service, Mr. Williams told the dispatcher that a man was chasing him with a gun, and the dispatcher told him that an officer would be right over. C. Williams Dep. at 79.⁸ When Mr. Williams and Rivera returned to the Williamses' home, they saw Plaintiff, White, Sabella, and Alendi all outside the residence. Id. at 84; Rivera Dep. at 79. Sabella, however, recalled being inside the house when the police arrived. Sabella Dep. at 50.

Officers Christopher Romano and Gillio Costanzo responded to Mr. Williams' "man with a gun" call; the dispatch report showed that incident was reported using a video relay service for the deaf. Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 31–32; Zuckerman Decl. Ex. I, Dkt. 62–9. The officers arrived at the residence approximately five minutes after the call was received. C. Williams Dep. at 83. Both Mr. Williams and Rivera testified that they attempted to convey to the officers that they were the callers who had sought help, but the officers gravitated toward Alendi, who was able to communicate orally. Rivera Dep. at 80; C. Williams Dep. at 87.

Officer Costanzo interviewed White, with whom he communicated through Alendi, but never spoke or interacted with Plaintiff. Rozynski Decl. Ex. J ("Costanzo Dep.") at 12, 41. According to Officer Costanzo, Officer Romano interviewed Plaintiff while he spoke with White. Id. at 28, 43. Officer Costanzo recalled that White, through Alendi, told him that she was moving out of the apartment, that there had been an ongoing issue between the landlord and tenant, "[a]nd one way or another, they put hands on each other and they started to fight." Id. at 33. Costanzo testified that he remembered that both women were arrested for assault, but he was not "one hundred percent sure" whether White had admitted assaulting Plaintiff. Id. at 36. Officer Costanzo described his conversation with Officer Romano about their interviews with the two women as follows: "Well, when I got my side, he got his side. And then, we were just, like, she hit her and they scratched. And that was it." Id. at 43. Officer Costanzo did not recall any accusations about a man making threats with a gun or anyone talking about a gun being present at the scene. Costanzo Dep. at 36, 88.

Officer Romano's recollection is, at best, hazy. He remembers speaking to one of the women through her husband, who could communicate orally. Rozynski Decl. Ex. K ("Romano Apr. 4 Dep.") at 34, 39. He recalls that a woman told him that she and the other woman had gotten in a fight, but there was no mention that the woman had been involved in an assault. Id. at 36–37, 40. He deduced that by "fight" the woman meant "physical fight" based on his observation of visible injuries. Romano Apr. 4 Dep. at 40, 43. At his first deposition, he could not recall the specific injuries; at his second, he recalled a scratch on Plaintiff's face and that she complained of pain in her arm. Romano Apr. 4 Dep. at 40–41; Rozynski Decl. Ex. L ("Romano Oct. 9 Dep.") at 17. Officer Romano concluded that the visible injury was the result of an assault "[b]ecause the husband told me that they were both fighting, so did the other woman and that's really all we need." Romano Apr. 4 Dep. at 43. He did not recall "if they informed [him] that they were fighting physically"—his conclusion was based solely on his observations at the scene. Romano Apr. 4 Dep. at 43–44; Romano Oct. 9 Dep. at 91. Curiously, Officer Romano testified at his second deposition that he was able to communicate with Plaintiff directly:

Q: How were you able to communicate with Diana Williams directly?

A: I would just speak to her and ask her questions.

Q: And she would respond to you?

A: From—I don't recall how she was responding, but to the—to my memory, she responded to any and all information that I needed and long—sorry, go ahead.

Q: Verbally?

A: I don't recall.

[Objection to form.]

Q: So, you recall being able to communicate with Diana Williams just fine?

[Objection to form.]

A: To the best of my knowledge, I recall, yeah.

Romano Oct. 9 Dep. at 33. From all of this, Officer Romano concluded that Plaintiff...