New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

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.

Published on: July 3, 2024

Austin v. Jewish Home & Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 30581 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

When it comes to pursuing claims against negligent nursing homes for abuse or negligence, claims must be filed within the limitations periods. In New York, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is generally three years from the date of the injury. This means that a lawsuit for personal injuries must be filed within three years of the date the injury occurred.

In Austin v. Jewish Home & Hosp., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 30581 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015), the plaintiff alleged that the nursing home was negligent, resulting in serious injuries to the resident and their wrongful death. The issue before the court was not only whether the nursing home was negligent, but also whether the claims were time-barred due to the statute of limitations.

Background Facts

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 24, 2024

Supreme Court Determined that serious injury is not necessary for prison abuse claim. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Hudson v. McMillian addresses the boundaries of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the context of excessive force by prison officials. This landmark decision by the Supreme Court clarified whether significant injury is required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment when a prisoner alleges excessive physical force.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal statute that provides a means for individuals to sue for civil rights violations. Enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 it aims to provide a remedy against abuses by state officials. The statute allows any person within the United States to bring a lawsuit against any state or local official who, under the color of law, deprives them of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and federal laws.

Under § 1983, plaintiffs can seek both monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of constitutional rights, such as the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is an important tool for holding public officials, including police officers, prison guards, and other government employees, accountable for misconduct and abuse of power.

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: May 15, 2024

Tacheau v. Mastrantonio, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 22391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

In the context of prisoner abuse, a violation of the Eighth Amendment occurs when an inmate endures cruel and unusual punishment, such as physical abuse by correctional officers. This includes any excessive force or harsh conditions that are deemed unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment violation involves the denial of due process, particularly when a prisoner is unfairly subjected to disciplinary actions or false accusations without proper procedures or hearings. Both amendments are designed to protect prisoners from inhumane treatment and ensure their rights are upheld within the correctional system.

A violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment that results in serious injury can serve as a basis for a lawsuit against the responsible parties. When inmates suffer significant harm due to cruel and unusual punishment or procedural injustices, they may seek redress through civil litigation. Such lawsuits can hold correctional officers, supervisors, or the institution accountable for failing to protect the inmate’s constitutional rights and for the resulting damages.

In Tacheau v. Mastrantonio, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 22391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), a case involving allegations of prisoner abuse and wrongful death, the court addressed several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue for constitutional violations by state actors.

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