Wright v. Musanti
| Decision Date | 13 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 17-632-cv,August Term, 2017 |
| Citation | 887 F.3d 577 |
| Parties | Scott WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacqueline MUSANTI, Defendant-Appellant, NYPD Officer Michael Manetta, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Steven M. Warshawsky, The Warshawsky Law Firm (Tomasz J. Piotrowski, T.J. Piotrowski Law Firm, New York, NY, on the brief ), for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jaqueline Musanti, pro se.
Before: Walker, Lynch, and Chin, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jacqueline Musanti appeals from a judgment entered against her following a bench trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Katherine B. Forrest, Judge ). Musanti was found liable for the battery, assault, and false arrest of Plaintiff-Appellee Scott Wright, stemming from an altercation that arose when Wright cut in front of Musanti as they were walking to their respective Manhattan offices during rush hour. Musanti responded by kicking Wright's legs, and a verbal and physical altercation ensued. Musanti pressed criminal charges, telling the police that Wright was the initial aggressor, but the district court, relying on surveillance video footage and the testimony of both parties, found that Musanti had been the initial aggressor and had given false information to the police. The court awarded nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages to Wright.
Musanti raises numerous challenges to the judgment. First, she asserts that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit after it dismissed the sole federal claim, leaving only state law claims. Second, Musanti challenges the finding of liability for false arrest, arguing (i) that the court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment; (ii) that the district court erred when, after initially granting a directed verdict for Musanti as to the false arrest claim, it retracted the directed verdict and allowed the claim to go forward; and (iii) that the district court's ultimate finding in favor of Wright on the false arrest claim was clearly erroneous. Third, Musanti objects to various evidentiary rulings made by the district court. Finally, Musanti argues that the district court erred in awarding punitive damages.
As explained below, we are unpersuaded by Musanti's various arguments. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
The facts presented below are drawn from the district court's findings of fact, which are amply supported by the evidence. On the date of the incident, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Wright, a slightly built man, was walking to his office, where he was the account manager for an online marketing company. At the same time, Musanti, a medium-sized woman, was walking to her office, where she worked for an apparel company. Though Wright and Musanti worked in neighboring buildings, they had never met before this incident.
As often happens on crowded New York streets, Wright's and Musanti's paths crossed. Initially, Musanti was walking a few paces behind Wright and to his right. She then crossed in front of him and continued walking diagonally to his left. After a few more steps, Wright passed Musanti and continued walking directly in front of her, no more than a few feet ahead. As a result, Musanti accidentally stepped on Wright's heel and stumbled. She then intentionally kicked Wright's heel, prompting a verbal confrontation between the two pedestrians. During the exchange, Musanti kicked at Wright, though she did not make further contact with his person. Wright did not respond to Musanti's action, instead turning to enter his office building, but Musanti continued addressing aggressive statements to him and blocked his path into his building. When Wright lightly pushed Musanti out of his path, she began hitting, kicking, and scratching him, and pinned him against the building's facade. At that point, Wright grabbed Musanti's collar and pulled her to the ground. A security guard from Wright's office pulled him off Musanti and released him. Wright attempted again to enter his office building, but Musanti again blocked his path. Eventually, Wright was able to enter his building and proceed to his office.
After Wright went into his building, New York Police Department officers arrived on the scene and questioned Musanti and other bystanders about the altercation. Musanti told the police that she thought Wright had purposefully cut her off and that she kicked him because she felt personally under attack. While Musanti was being questioned, seven to nine other officers entered Wright's office and arrested him, escorting him in handcuffs through his office and the lobby of the building, and into the back of a police car, where he remained for roughly forty-five minutes. When asked by the police what she wanted to do, Musanti responded that she wanted to press charges. As a result, Wright was driven to a nearby precinct, where he spent about forty minutes in a holding cell, and was then released with a desk appearance ticket.
Wright was subsequently arraigned and charged with two counts of assault in the third degree, one count of attempted assault in the third degree and one count of harassment in the second degree. To defend himself against these charges, he paid $5,000 for a lawyer and several hundred dollars for an investigator. After approximately five court appearances, the charges were dismissed because of Musanti's repeated failure to appear as a witness.
Wright then brought this lawsuit, initially alleging a federal claim against the arresting officer, Michael Manetta, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in addition to four New York state law claims against Musanti. Subject matter jurisdiction was premised on federal question jurisdiction for the § 1983 claim, with supplemental jurisdiction extending to the state law claims. The district court dismissed the § 1983 claim on the pleadings on February 5, 2016,1 leaving only the state law assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution claims against Musanti. After dismissing the sole federal claim, the district court determined that it retained subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims based on diversity jurisdiction.2 Diversity jurisdiction existed, the court ruled, because, although both Wright and Musanti were citizens of New York at the time of the incident, Musanti had subsequently moved to Tennessee, where she still resides. Indeed, in her answer to Wright's complaint, Musanti denied Wright's allegation that she was a citizen of New York, and signed the answer using her Tennessee address. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Musanti was a citizen of Tennessee, while Wright remained a citizen of New York, thus creating complete diversity of citizenship between the parties. Additionally, Wright had alleged over $75,000 in damages in his complaint. The district court reasoned that, although in a typical case the basis for diversity jurisdiction must exist at the outset of the action, that principle does not apply in a case where the court's jurisdiction had been previously, and properly, premised on federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court retained jurisdiction over the state law claims, which proceeded to discovery. The court later granted summary judgment for Musanti on Wright's malicious prosecution claim, but allowed the battery, assault, and false arrest claims to go forward.
At a one-day bench trial, the district court heard testimony from Wright and Musanti. Wright testified in support of his case, but did not call Musanti or any other witnesses to the stand. At the close of Wright's case, Musanti, acting pro se , requested a directed verdict in her favor. The district court granted the request as to the false arrest claim, concluding that Wright had failed to present evidence regarding how the arrest was initiated. However, the battery and assault claims remained, so Musanti took the stand in support of her defense. During cross-examination of Musanti, the court revisited its earlier dismissal of the false arrest claim, observing that it had failed to allow Wright to object before making its decision. At that point, Wright did object to Musanti's request for a directed verdict, arguing that he could elicit testimony from Musanti that would go to the initiation of the arrest. He explained that he had failed to call Musanti as an adverse witness only because he knew Musanti would testify during her case in chief and he did not want her, as a pro se party, to have to testify twice. Had Wright known that Musanti would move for a directed verdict at the close of his case in chief, he would have called her as an adverse witness. The district court accepted these explanations and withdrew its previous ruling, noting that while the court still had reservations about Wright's ability to prove his case, he should be given the opportunity to do so through cross-examination of Musanti. Musanti did not object to that ruling.
In its subsequent written opinion, the district court found Musanti liable for assault and battery against Wright because she had kicked, hit, scratched, and threatened Wright several times during the incident, and had not acted in self defense in doing so. The court cited several reasons why it did not credit Musanti's testimony that she had kicked Wright in self-defense. First, surveillance video that had captured the first seconds of the scuffle contradicted Musanti's testimony; second, Plaintiff's counsel had successfully impeached Musanti on cross-examination, further undermining her credibility; and finally, Musanti's demeanor was "excitable, impulsive and defensive," while Wright was "in all respects credible," because his "testimony was consistent and his demeanor was measured and calm." Wright v. Musanti , No. 14-CV-8976, 2017 WL 253486, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2017). Accordingly, the court credited Wright's testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.
...the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged." Wright v. Musanti, 887 F.3d 577, 587 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, 335 N.E.2d 310 (1975)). Macy's does not challenge the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs......
-
Matkal LLC v. VG Rush Corp.
...2018, (Declaration of Marc J. Pernick, Ex. 1), and, thus, at the time the notice of removal was filed. See generally Wright v. Musanti, 887 F.3d 577, 585 (2d Cir. 2018) ("[I]n cases removed to federal court from state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, diversity of citizenship ne......
-
Dhinsa v. Krueger
...properly exercised jurisdiction over the petition, whether or not that issue has been raised by the parties on appeal. Wright v. Musanti , 887 F.3d 577, 583 (2d Cir. 2018). If we determine that District Court "was without jurisdiction," our appellate jurisdiction is limited to the "purpose ......
-
Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC
...denial of summary judgment based on factual challenges is not reviewable after a full trial on the merits.2 See, e.g., Wright v. Musanti, 887 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir. 2018) (because denial of summary judgment was based on disputed factual issues and not on a pure question of law, denial of su......
-
Frequent Evidentiary Battles
...between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Wright v. Musanti , 887 F.3d 577, 588 (2d Cir. 2018). New York law permits the fact finder to consider evidence of a defendant’s wealth when setting the amount of punitive dam......
-
Introduction
...not meet the constitutional guideposts of BMW v. Gore . INTRODUCTION 1-35 Introduction: Objections in General §114 Wright v. Musanti , 887 F.3d 577, 588 (2d Cir. 2018). In New York, the trier of fact may take into consideration the defendant’s wealth when deciding punitive damages. The fact......