Author: Ben Bedell, New York Law Journal, April 13, 2016 – An appeals court reinstated $1.8 million of a $4 million jury verdict against New York City and two of its police officers that had been cut to $350,000 by a trial judge in an excessive force case Tuesday.
A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed Justice Howard Sherman‘s determination that no punitive damages should have been awarded against two officers.
Although the jury’s $750,000 awards against each of the officers were deemed excessive, the panel said $75,000 each was appropriate and reinstated $1.65 million of the jury’s award against the city.
In an opinion by Justice Barbara Kapnick, the panel said Sherman had “impermissibly usurped the jury’s role and made factual determinations.”
A Bronx jury had awarded a total of $4 million in damages to William Cardoza, who was arrested in a May 2008 incident that began when police surrounded him on a sidewalk outside of his apartment building and demanded that he produce identification. The police said they had seen him holding an open beer bottle.
Cardoza, 49 at the time, was bringing a plate of chicken to his wife and family for an outdoor dinner in the building courtyard. He testified he drank two or three beers while cooking the dinner, and had one in his hand when he went to the courtyard. He was employed as the superintendent of the apartment building where he lived with his wife and seven children.
It was undisputed Cardoza, who was born in Puerto Rico, did not understand English, and his wife attempted to intervene to translate the police commands, most of which were in English.
As he was taken into custody, he and his wife were pepper-sprayed, and Cardoza’s hand was splintered in two places by baton blows, requiring surgery that night. Cardoza spent six days handcuffed to a hospital bed after the arrest, according to opinion.
The Bronx District Attorney’s Office dropped a resisting arrest charge and a judge dismissed the remaining disorderly conduct charge after hearing the testimony of one of the arresting officers.
Cardoza claimed in his civil case, brought under 42 USC §1983, that police used excessive force and had falsely claimed he had resisted.
During a three-week trial, the jury viewed video from a surveillance camera that captured the entire incident.
But Sherman, in a 188-page post-trial ruling, said the jury had been mistaken in finding the police liable for malicious prosecution. He vacated the punitive damages against NYPD officers Benjamin Perez and Carlos Mendez.
Sherman said the record contained no showing of false statements by the officers, and thus Cardoza had failed to establish malice, which was necessary for a prima facie case of malicious prosecution and to sustain his claim for punitive damages.
Sherman let the excessive force finding stand but cut the damages award, saying he did not credit expert testimony as to Cardoza’s post-traumatic stress claim.
The parties cross-appealed, but the city did not challenge the excessive force finding, only the punitive award and the damage amounts.
The appeals panel said Cardoza’s injuries warranted past and future pain and suffering damages of $400,000 and $1.25 million respectively.
“When the facts give rise to conflicting inferences, as they do here, it is for the jury, not the court, to resolve those conflicts,” Kapnick said. She added that Sherman’s statement that Cardoza had “‘refused to submit to the authority of the police’ is a clear example of the court substituting its judgment for that of the jury.”
“Contrary to the trial court’s assessment, there was evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that Perez and Mendez acted with reckless indifference or malice,” Kapnick said, referencing conflicts between the officers’ testimony and the video.
“While the reduction of the jury’s award for punitive damages is substantial, a $75,000 award against each individual defendant will, in our opinion, surely act as a deterrent against similar conduct in the future,” she said.
Joining in the ruling in Cardoza v. City of New York, 307977/08, were Justices Rolando Acosta, David Saxe, Rosalyn Richter and Judith Gische.
In his March 2014 ruling, Sherman also denied Cardoza’s lawyers attorney fees, which are payable under the fee-shifting provision of §1983. The panel ordered Sherman to award fees and remanded the issue for a determination of the amount.
The defendants were represented by Dona Morris, Pamela Dolgow and Lavanya Pisupati of the Corporation Counsel’s office, which said it is reviewing the decision and evaluating its options.
Seth Harris, of Burns & Harris, who represented Cardoza at the trial and was co-counsel on the appeal, said: “I’ve been doing excessive force cases for 25 years. The evidence in this one, especially the video, was very compelling. My client was not resisting, He was not doing anything wrong.”
Harris said Sherman’s ruling left him “steamed. I think Justice Kapnick’s opinion set the record straight and was spot on.”
He asserted, however, that both police officers would be indemnified for the punitive damages award and would not have to pay out of pocket.
Harris was assisted by Christopher Donadio, who has since left the firm. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco partner Brian Isaac was co-counsel on the appeal.
Helping Injured Victims in New York and New Jersey Since 2004
CONSTRUCTION WORKER FALLS ON HEAD FROM SCISSOR LIFT
PASSENGER STRUCK BY MTA BUS DOOR
MTA BUS ACCIDENT RESULTS IN LEG FRACTURE
PASSENGER INJURED IN VEHICLE
PEDESTRIAN HIT BY CAR
FAILURE TO PROPERLY MONITOR PATIENT DURING PROCEDURE
TRIP & FALL ACCIDENT DUE TO CITY NEGLIGENCE
PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY BUS
PEDESTRIAN STRUCK BY FORKLIFT
REAR-END ACCIDENT RESULTS IN KNEE SURGERY
SINGLE CAR ACCIDENT DUE TO OPEN MANHOLE
REAR-END CAR ACCIDENT
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SCAFFOLD FALL
"The last of our 3 kids had his citizenship ceremony yesterday - we are pleased to report that we will have 3 voters at the coming election. We want to thank you and your crew for what has been a simple process for us. Very efficient, professional and easy in every way. Many thanks, -Gelhard, M. I really appreciate your dedication to customer service and will definitely be doing business with you for any of my future needs. Thanks again!" - Lopez, P
"Thanks so much for all your help it was really appreciated." - Carline and Varnel
"Mr. Pollack and Staff, You were there when we needed the most. Thank you very much!" - Alte, M.
"Thank you for your dedication on my case. I really appreciate every moment spent bringing this case to a financial result. " - Amy