Woods v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 19 February 1969
• Citation: 23 N.Y.2d 934,298 N.Y.S.2d 513
• Parties: , 246 N.E.2d 362 Hazel WOODS, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits which were of James Jones, Deceased, and Hazel Woods, Individually, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 513

298 N.Y.S.2d 513

23 N.Y.2d 934, 246 N.E.2d 362

Hazel WOODS, as Administratrix of the Goods, Chattels and Credits which were of James Jones, Deceased, and Hazel Woods, Individually, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 19, 1969.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 29 A.D.2d 550, 285 N.Y.S.2d 149. Harry Heller, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. Lee Rankin, New York City (Stanley Buchsbaum, Alfred Weinstein, New York City, Bernard Dillon, Brooklyn, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.

Youth brought action against the City of New York and two police officers for injuries sustained when he was shot by first officer.

The youth died during the pendency of the appeal to the Appellate Division and his administratrix was substituted as party plaintiff.

Officers went to home of youth and arrested him for cutting his brother. The officers seated youth in chair though youth insisted on seeing his brother. The youth lunged at the second officer and struck him on the head with an empty clay flower pot. The second officer fell dazed to the floor. The first officer struck youth with his night stick in unsuccessful attempt to restrain him. The youth turned and kicked the first officer in the groin, causing him to fall to the floor. The youth then picked up an end table and raised it to strike the prostrate first officer. The first officer warned the youth to drop the table or the first officer would shoot. The youth failed to do so and was shot by the first officer.

The Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County, Anthony J. Di Giovanna, J., entered an order setting aside a jury verdict in favor of the City and the officers and directed a new trial.

The Appellate Division entered an order December 11, 1967 which reversed the order of the Trial Term and reinstated the verdict. The Appellate Division held that question whether the first officer used excessive force in shooting youth was a question for the jury.

The administratrix, as administratrix and individually, appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that no crime had been committed to justify the alleged arrest, and that the youth's acts as a matter of law constituted justified resistance to unlawful aggression on part of officers, and that officers, as the aggressors in the encounter, forfeited all right of self-defense, and that, in any event, the shooting was unjustified, and that numerous alleged...