Police brutality

Published on: January 9, 2026

Correctional Facility Liability for Inmate Assault: Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York law requires correctional authorities to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from foreseeable harm. While the State and municipalities are not insurers of inmate safety, they owe a duty of care to safeguard those in custody from reasonably foreseeable risks, including inmate-on-inmate violence. When an assault occurs in a detention facility, courts examine whether officials had actual or constructive notice of a risk and whether they failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm. In Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007), the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed whether the City could be held liable for a razor attack committed by one inmate against another inside a segregation unit.

Background Facts

On March 26, 1995, Alex Rivera was sleeping in his cell at the New York City Adolescent Reception and Detention Center in the Bronx. While he slept, another inmate, Curtis Armstrong, slashed him with a razor. Rivera sustained cuts to the back of his neck, the side of his face, and his arms.

Published on: January 2, 2026

Federal Court Reviews Excessive Force and Medical Care Claims in Newland v. Achute, 932 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal law allows incarcerated individuals to bring civil rights claims when they believe their constitutional rights were violated. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person may sue state actors for conduct that deprives them of rights protected by the United States Constitution. In the prison setting, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have held that this protection applies to claims involving excessive force and denial of medical care. In Newland v. Achute, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined whether a former inmate presented sufficient evidence to proceed with claims that correction staff used excessive force and denied him proper medical treatment.

Background Facts

Wayne C. Newland was incarcerated at the Adolescent Reception Detention Center (ARDC) on Rikers Island in December 1991. He had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property and was awaiting sentencing. According to court records, the facility had an order requiring that he be produced in court on December 18, 1991 for sentencing.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit determined summary judgment was improper on false arrest civil rights claims. Ackerson v. City of White Plains, 702 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

This civil rights action arose from an arrest that stemmed from a report by a resident who said that a man approached her in her driveway and questioned her about her family. The arrest led to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. The case addressed the limits of probable cause, the scope of qualified immunity, and the level of supervision that municipalities must provide to officers. The appeal also involved questions related to false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Background Facts

On November 8, 2007, Shawn Ackerson approached a woman in her driveway. He asked about her household and said that her car had hit his earlier that day. The woman told him to leave and contacted the police. Officer Cotto responded and filed a report. The report noted that Ackerson said he found her address through her license plate and believed that her husband had been near a location linked to Ackerson’s former girlfriend. The woman also told officers that she feared Ackerson because she did not know him and felt unsafe during the encounter.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Court Declines Discovery Delay in Civil Rights Action Alleging Sexual Assault by NYPD Detectives in Doe v. City of New York, 18-cv-670 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case grew out of a civil rights lawsuit filed by Anna Doe after an arrest that she said involved serious misconduct by two New York City detectives. While the detectives also faced criminal charges in state court based on the same events, the focus in federal court was the progress of Doe’s civil case and whether the detectives could delay discovery until their criminal matter ended. The district judge examined their request, reviewed the magistrate judge’s order, and considered whether the discovery schedule in the civil rights lawsuit should change.

Background facts

Anna Doe filed a civil action in Kings County Supreme Court against Detectives Richard Hall and Eddie Martins, Sergeant John Espey, Officer Gregory Markov, unnamed officers, and the City of New York. She alleged that Hall and Martins arrested her on September 15, 2017 without legal cause and then raped her in a police van. After the City removed the case to federal court, the City, Espey, and Markov moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed all claims against Espey and dismissed some claims against the City and Markov. The case continued against Hall and Martins. It also continued on a respondeat superior claim against the City for false arrest and imprisonment, and on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Markov.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit determined the record supported an excessive force claim in Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015), involved a street encounter between a New York City resident and police officers that led to an arrest and the use of force. The case later went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court reviewed video evidence of the arrest and the parties’ accounts. The appeal centered on whether the officers’ force during the arrest, including the use of pepper spray, violated the Fourth Amendment. The case showed how courts treated force that took place during a short encounter and how juries had a role in judging that force under the governing standard.

Background facts

The incident took place in lower Manhattan near a Starbucks. Brown went to the store and wanted to use the bathroom. Store staff refused and called the police after reports about her conduct, including banging on the door. Officers responded and approached Brown on the sidewalk near metal scaffolding.

Published on: November 6, 2024

Pleva v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 222 A.D.3d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a legal action seeking damages for negligence, assault, and battery, the defendants appealed a Suffolk County Supreme Court order dated September 10, 2020. The order denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligence, assault, and battery.

A cause of action for negligence arises when a person breaches their duty to act with reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another party. In legal terms, negligence involves the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must demonstrate four key elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

On the other hand, a cause of action for assault and battery involves intentional conduct that causes harmful or offensive contact with another person. Assault refers to the threat or attempt to inflict harm, while battery involves actual physical contact. Unlike negligence, which focuses on the failure to exercise reasonable care, assault and battery require intent or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant.

Published on: September 30, 2024

Whether police used excessive force when responding to claims of a domestic dispute. Benitez v. The City of New York, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 50370 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiffs Melody Ann Benitez (“Ms. Benitez”) and Angel Antonio Castro (“Mr. Castro”) filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries and civil rights violations allegedly sustained during an incident on September 29, 2016. They claim that events that unfolded that evening, including encounters with the police and hospital security, resulted in false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution.

Background Facts

On the evening of September 29, 2016, Plaintiffs attended a scholarship dinner hosted by the Puerto Rican Bar Association, where they consumed alcoholic drinks. After the dinner, they were walking in New York City to hail a taxi when police officers approached them in response to a call regarding a possible domestic assault. Ms. Benitez and Mr. Castro were both interviewed separately by the officers.

Published on: August 19, 2024

Plaintiffs claimed that the police conducted an unlawful research of her store. Borisova v. Friberg, 18-CV-7440 (AMD) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Borisova v. Friberg, the plaintiff brought a legal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against William Friberg, his company, Triple I Associates, as well as police officers Elizabeth Drozd-Spidle and Rebecca Coogan, and the City of New York (the “City Defendants”). The plaintiff alleged that the defendants unlawfully searched her store and arrested her on charges of selling counterfeit merchandise. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were partially denied and partially granted.

Background

The plaintiff owned Marina’s Mall, a retail store in Brooklyn, selling fragrances, costume jewelry, and accessories. On October 4, 2017, William Friberg, a former NYPD officer turned private investigator, entered the store and later returned with Officers Drozd-Spidle and Coogan, accusing the plaintiff of selling counterfeit fragrances. Despite the plaintiff offering to show receipts of her purchases, Friberg proceeded to inspect the merchandise himself, even opening drawers and examining their contents.

Published on: July 10, 2024

Supreme Court, Dutchess County determined that deputies’ actions caused injury to inmate. Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, excessive force by police occurs when officers use more physical force than necessary to achieve a lawful objective. This includes actions that are unreasonable, unjustified, or beyond what a reasonable officer would use under the circumstances, potentially violating a person’s constitutional rights.

Holland v. City of Poughkeepsie, 90 A.D.3d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) involves the City of Poughkeepsie, the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department, and Officer Michael Labrada and legal questions about the use of force, false arrest, and civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983.

Background Facts

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.