New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: July 9, 2024

Williams v. City of N.Y., 129 A.D.3d 1066 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case seeking damages for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, police officers in New York appealed a decision denying their motion for summary judgment. The case involved allegations of excessive force during an arrest. The officers, William Danchak, Richard E. Pignatelli, James E. Halleran, Edward J. Deighan, and Michael E. Knott, were employed by the City of New York.

In a case alleging that police violated civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove several key elements. Firstly, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant, typically a government official or entity, acted under the color of state law. This means the defendant was acting in an official capacity or using power given to them by the state. In this case, the defendants were police officers acting in an official capacity. Secondly, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deprived them of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or federal law. This could include rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, or the Eighth Amendment, protecting against cruel and unusual punishment.

Additionally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that this deprivation was intentional, meaning the defendant knowingly or recklessly violated their rights. It’s important to note that negligence or mere mistakes are generally not enough to establish a § 1983 claim; there must be a deliberate disregard for the plaintiff’s rights. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions caused them harm, which can include physical injury, emotional distress, or other forms of damage.

Published on: July 1, 2024

Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of inmate, allowing him to avoid going on the special hold designed for inmates who forgo the tuberculosis screening. Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

Upon arrival at New York prisons, new inmates undergo a comprehensive screening process to detect communicable diseases like tuberculosis (TB). This testing is essential due to the highly contagious nature of TB and the close living quarters within correctional facilities, which create an environment conducive to disease transmission.

The screening typically involves a series of steps, starting with a thorough medical history review and physical examination. Inmates are often required to undergo a tuberculin skin test (TST) or a blood test to check for TB infection. Those who test positive may undergo further evaluation, including chest X-rays, to confirm the presence of active TB disease.

However, some inmates object to some screening tests based on religious belief. The Constitution guarantees inmates freedom of speech and freedom to practice their religion of choice. Failure to do so may be a type of inmate abuse. In Selah v. Goord, 00-CV-644 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003), plaintff Selam Selah, an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, objected to tuberculosis screening based on religious beliefs. An inmate who refuses the PPD test is placed in tuberculin hold.

Published on: June 3, 2024

Question of excessive for when police attempting to get plaintiff to go to the hospital. Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

Excessive force in New York refers to the application of force by law enforcement officers beyond what is reasonably necessary to achieve a lawful objective. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, which includes protection against excessive force by police officers. In New York, determining whether force used by an officer is excessive involves an “objective reasonableness” standard, which evaluates the situation from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the facts and circumstances without the benefit of hindsight.

Background Facts

The incident began when the plaintiff, an epileptic man, experienced four grand mal seizures. Two of these seizures were witnessed by a paramedic and an emergency medical technician (EMT). After receiving valium from the paramedic, the plaintiff partially recovered but refused to go to the hospital. Following protocol, the paramedic contacted his supervising physician, who insisted that the plaintiff be transported to the hospital due to the administration of a narcotic. The plaintiff’s refusal led the EMT to call the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department for assistance.

Published on: May 20, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court determined when the use of excessive for against an inmate is a violation of rights. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment for inmates in New York prisons. This means that prison officials cannot intentionally harm or mistreat inmates. Inmates have the right to be free from excessive force, deliberate indifference to their medical needs, and unsafe conditions that pose a serious risk to their health or safety. The Eighth Amendment also requires that inmates receive adequate medical care and protection from violence while in custody. Any actions by prison officials that violate these rights may be considered unconstitutional and subject to legal action.

In the case of Hudson v. McMillian, a Louisiana state prisoner, Keith J. Hudson, brought forth a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three corrections officers alleging excessive force. This case journeyed through the judicial system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Background Facts

Published on: April 17, 2024

Liability for police dog bite. Relf v. City of Troy, 169 A.D.3d 1223 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

Excessive force refers to the application of force by law enforcement officers that exceeds what is reasonably necessary to effectively control a situation, prevent harm, or make an arrest. While officers are permitted to use force in certain circumstances, such as when facing resistance or threats to safety, the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed. Determining whether force is excessive involves a careful consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the alleged crime, the behavior of the individual, and the risk of danger to officers and others.

In cases involving excessive force, courts typically apply an objective reasonableness standard, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor (1989). This standard evaluates the actions of the officer from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the information known to the officer at the time of the incident. Factors such as the threat posed by the individual, the availability of alternative methods, and the need for immediate action are all taken into account.

In Relf v. City of Troy, the court was tasked with applying this standard to the actions of a police dog, which is considered a tool of law enforcement. Just as with human officers, the use of a police dog’s force must be reasonable under the circumstances. This includes considerations such as the dog’s training, the handler’s supervision, and the foreseeability of harm to innocent bystanders.

Published on: April 3, 2024

Was DOCS’s denial of an inmates requested medical treatment was arbitrary and capricious? Wooley v. Corr. Servs, 15 N.Y.3d 275 (N.Y. 2010)

by Stephen Bilkis

Inmates have a constitutional right to adequate medical treatment, protected under the Eighth Amendment. This includes protection from deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. While the scope of this right is subject to limitations and considerations of prison administration, such as cost and security, authorities are obligated to provide essential medical care to inmates. Upholding this right ensures that individuals in custody receive necessary treatment for existing health conditions and are not subjected to unnecessary suffering or harm due to neglect or indifference by prison officials.

In Wooley v. Corr. Servs, 15 N.Y.3d 275 (N.Y. 2010), the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) faced scrutiny over its denial of medical treatment to an inmate, Robert Wooley, who was diagnosed with hepatitis C. This denial of treatment led to a legal battle, with Wooley alleging violations of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. The case raised questions about the standards of medical care owed to inmates and the discretion of prison authorities in determining appropriate medical treatment.

Background Facts

Published on: March 11, 2024

Whether excessive force was used to get the plaintiff transported to a hospital. Albaum v. City of N.Y., 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30555 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Judith Albaum sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and several police officers to recover damages for personal injuries. The incident occurred when NYPD officers arrived at Albaum’s apartment in response to a call expressing concern for her well-being. Despite Albaum’s insistence that she was not a threat to herself, the situation escalated, leading to her removal from her home and transport to a hospital.

Background

When the police arrived at plaintiff Judith Albaum’s door in response to a call expressing concern for her well-being, she was inside her apartment, sitting at her desk and drinking a beer. Upon answering the door, she was informed that someone had called the police, worried that she might harm herself. She denied this allegation, identifying the caller as her estranged daughter and dismissing the concern as baseless. Despite police assurances that she was not under arrest and that they lacked a search warrant, Albaum refused to open the door, leading to a standoff during which she spoke to the police through the closed door for several minutes.

Published on: February 21, 2024

Court determined that jail officials were not responsible for inmate’s death. Rivera v. Westchester County, 188 Misc. 2d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Rivera v. Westchester County, 188 Misc. 2d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001), defendants County of Westchester, Joseph Stancari, Officer Savino, and Sergeant Rushin were faced with allegations regarding their treatment of a pretrial detainee, Ivan Figeroa, Jr., who tragically died by suicide while in custody at the Westchester County Jail in Valhalla, New York. The case involved claims brought under 42 USC § 1983, asserting violations of Figeroa’s Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights. The court’s decision, which followed a motion for summary judgment and a cross motion by the plaintiff, addressed various legal arguments related to the defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to Figeroa’s well-being and the timeliness of the plaintiff’s notice of claim.

Background Facts

Ivan Figeroa, Jr., was a 17-year-old high school student residing in Westchester County, New York, before his tragic death. His life took a drastic turn when he was arrested by local law enforcement officers following a domestic disturbance incident at his family’s residence. The nature of the disturbance involved a heated argument between Figeroa and his parents, resulting in Figeroa’s parents contacting the authorities out of concern for their son’s well-being.

Published on: January 29, 2024

Damages sought for false arrest. Macareno v. City of New York, 187 A.D.3d 1164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Albaum v. City of New York revolves around allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment, and the use of excessive force by the New York Police Department (NYPD). The plaintiff, Judith Albaum, was arrested in Queens County in 2014 and charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The criminal charges were later dismissed, leading Albaum to file a lawsuit against the City of New York and Officer Jose Rendon, among others, seeking damages for the alleged misconduct.

Probable cause and excessive force are two critical concepts in law enforcement that are closely related, particularly in cases involving arrests and the use of force by police officers. Probable cause refers to the standard by which police officers must have a reasonable belief that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before making an arrest, conducting a search, or seizing property. It is a fundamental principle designed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrests and intrusions by law enforcement.

Excessive force, on the other hand, occurs when law enforcement officers use more force than is reasonably necessary to apprehend a suspect or control a situation. This can include physical force, such as hitting, punching, or using a weapon, as well as non-physical force, such as threats or intimidation. If an officer lacks probable cause to make an arrest, any force used to carry out that arrest may be considered excessive and in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.

Published on: January 10, 2024

Court denied habeas corpus based on risk of contracting COVID. People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

A writ of habeas corpus is a legal petition filed by a person who is detained or imprisoned, challenging the legality of their detention. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to bring the detained individual before a court or judge to determine whether their imprisonment or detention is lawful.

People v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020) involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Jalil Muntaqim, a 68-year-old black inmate serving concurrent prison sentences at Sullivan Correctional Facility. The petitioner argued that Muntaqim’s continued detention at the facility during the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to unconstitutional punishment due to his age, race, and underlying medical conditions, putting him at significant risk of serious illness or death if infected with the virus.

Background Facts