DeVincenzi v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In DeVincenzi v. The City of New York, Judge Broderick denied settlement-payment enforcement because approval was required from New York’s Surrogate’s Court.
The Estate of Benjamin DeVincenzi and Paul Rivera were directly affected by the ruling. The City of New York and the John Doe defendants had previously been dismissed from the case.
What happened
DeVincenzi v. The City of New York began as a civil-rights lawsuit about Benjamin DeVincenzi’s arrest and alleged excessive force. After other claims and defendants were removed, the parties settled the remaining claim for $100,000, but payment did not occur.
The plaintiff’s lawyer asked the federal court to order payment. The defendants argued that the settlement required approval by New York’s Surrogate’s Court because the lawsuit was not a wrongful-death or conscious-pain-and-suffering case. The court agreed that the complaint concerned excessive force and did not connect DeVincenzi’s later death from a severe asthma attack to the alleged police conduct.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion to compel Defendant Paul Rivera to pay the settlement. He directed the parties to seek approval and enforcement in the Surrogate’s Court and to update him within 14 days after that court’s decision.
The detailed version
- DeVincenzi v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06012
- Vernon Broderick
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Sara DeVincenzi, acting as administrator of the Estate of Benjamin DeVincenzi, filed this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The complaint alleged that police arrested Benjamin DeVincenzi in July 2016, held him overnight, and subjected him to unjustified physical force. He was arraigned on a charge of obstructing governmental administration and released on his own recognizance. The charges were later adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.
Benjamin DeVincenzi died about 18 months after the arrest from a severe asthma attack. The complaint did not assert a wrongful-death claim or allege that his death was connected to the police conduct. The court later allowed Sara DeVincenzi to proceed without a lawyer as estate administrator because she stated that she was the estate’s only beneficiary. She later obtained counsel.
In 2022, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss all claims except the third cause of action for excessive force. In 2023, the court denied the defendants’ summary-judgment motion and dismissed the City of New York and the John Doe defendants. The remaining claim was an excessive-force claim against Paul Rivera.
Settlement and Motion
In April 2024, with assistance from Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis, the parties reached a settlement under which the defendants agreed, among other things, to pay the plaintiff $100,000. The case was dismissed under the settlement and a stipulation of dismissal. The court’s order stated that it would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
The plaintiff’s counsel later moved to compel payment and asked the court to enter judgment for the $100,000. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the settlement was conditioned on compliance with New York Surrogate’s Court rules and that federal-court approval was available only for an action involving wrongful death or the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering. The plaintiff argued that the allegations of police attack and injury made the case one for conscious pain and suffering and that the defendants waited too long to raise the approval issue.
Court’s Analysis
The court treated the issue as whether it had authority shared with the New York Surrogate’s Court to approve and enforce the settlement. Under New York law and the relevant local rule, a federal district court may approve a settlement involving wrongful death or the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering. The court described that exception as narrow.
The court concluded that this lawsuit did not fit the exception. The complaint alleged physical and emotional injuries and constitutional violations, but it did not allege claims related to DeVincenzi’s death. The court also found that the remaining excessive-force claim used a different legal analysis from wrongful-death and conscious-pain-and-suffering claims. The plaintiff had not alleged that DeVincenzi’s death was connected to the injuries allegedly caused by the police.
The settlement’s language independently supported sending the matter to Surrogate’s Court. It stated that the settlement was conditioned on compliance with the local rule and applicable Surrogate’s Court rules, required plaintiff’s counsel to submit documents needed for court approval, and provided that the defendants’ payment period would not begin until all relevant courts approved the settlement.
Disposition
The court held that it lacked authority under New York law to approve the settlement and could not enforce an unapproved settlement agreement. It therefore denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Paul Rivera to pay the settlement and directed the parties to seek approval and enforcement in the New York Surrogate’s Court. The parties were directed to provide an update within 14 days after the Surrogate’s Court’s decision. The Clerk’s Office was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 135.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.