Rattray v. Cadavid
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-08560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Rattray v. Cadavid, Judge Gardephe denied Rattray’s new-trial motion after a jury found he had not proven unlawful-search, false-arrest, and failure-to-intervene claims.
The ruling affected Wentworth Rattray and the defendants—the City of New York, Police Officer Jose Cadavid, and Police Officer Alyssa Trigueno. It left in place the jury verdict for the defendants and closed the case.
What happened
Rattray v. Cadavid concerns claims that Officer Jose Cadavid unlawfully entered and searched Rattray’s apartment and arrested him without probable cause, and that Officer Alyssa Trigueno failed to intervene. After a trial, the jury found that Rattray had not proven his claims, and the court entered judgment for the defendants.
Rattray asked for a new trial, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that emergency circumstances justified the warrantless entry. He also argued that testimony about a supervisor’s actions was newly discovered evidence. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the circumstances could have led a reasonable officer to believe Rattray’s daughter might be in danger and that the challenged testimony was not actually new.
Judge Gardephe denied Rattray’s motion for a new trial and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Rattray v. Cadavid · No. 1:17-cv-08560
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Wentworth Rattray brought claims under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law, against New York City, Police Officer Jose Cadavid, and Police Officer Alyssa Trigueno. He alleged that Cadavid violated the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully entering and searching his apartment and arresting him without probable cause. He also alleged that Trigueno failed to intervene in the alleged unlawful search and false arrest.
The claims proceeded to trial on August 29, 2023. On September 1, 2023, the jury found that Rattray had not proven his unlawful-search and false-arrest claims against Cadavid. Because the jury found no constitutional violation, the related failure-to-intervene claim against Trigueno also failed. The court entered judgment for the defendants on September 5, 2023.
Motion for a New Trial
Rattray moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(1) and sought relief based on alleged new evidence under Rule 60(b)(2). He argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because Cadavid had testified that he did not believe Rattray’s daughter was in “imminent danger.” Rattray also argued that Cadavid’s testimony about Lieutenant Filipp Khosh’s actions had not been disclosed during discovery.
A new trial under Rule 59 may be ordered when the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court emphasized that the party seeking a new trial has a heavy burden. Rule 60(b)(2) requires, among other things, genuinely newly discovered evidence that the party could not have obtained earlier through reasonable diligence and that probably would have changed the result.
Exigent Circumstances
The court concluded that the jury’s finding that the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances was supported by the evidence. The emergency-aid exception allows warrantless entry when the circumstances would cause a reasonable officer to believe that entry is needed to provide emergency assistance or protect someone from imminent injury. The question is objective: it depends on what a reasonable officer would have believed based on the totality of the circumstances, not solely on the officer’s personal state of mind.
The court relied on evidence that Sandy was crying and upset when she called 911; told the officers that Rattray had refused to let her see their daughter, that she could not reach the child, and that the child’s life was in danger; and told Cadavid that Rattray used drugs and sometimes had drug dealers in the apartment. The court also relied on its finding that Rattray acted aggressively, refused to answer questions about his daughter, refused to open the door, and tried to close it after opening it. Taken together, the court found that these facts could lead a reasonable officer to believe that the ten-year-old child might be in danger and that urgent action was needed to check her safety.
The court gave little weight to Rattray’s argument that Cadavid had conceded there was no imminent danger. Although Cadavid said the circumstances did not fit his personal definition of “imminent” danger, he repeatedly testified that he believed the child was not safe, was in danger, or could be hurt. The court further explained that the legal test did not turn on Cadavid’s subjective belief. It concluded that Rattray had not shown that the jury reached a seriously erroneous result.
Alleged New Evidence
The court also rejected Rattray’s Rule 60(b)(2) argument. The alleged new evidence concerned Khosh’s direction that a patrol car confirm that Rattray’s daughter was safe at a friend’s home. The court had reviewed Cadavid’s deposition and determined during trial that Cadavid had already testified in his deposition that Khosh obtained information about the daughter’s whereabouts and that she was at a friend’s house. Because the evidence was not actually new, the court found no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(2).
Disposition
The court denied Rattray’s motion for a new trial. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.