Bernard v. The City Of New York

Document and procedural posture

The provided text is a February 27, 2025 letter from counsel for Kimberly Bernard to Judge Denise L. Cote. It responds to defendants’ February 25 letter, which sought to stay discovery, forgo mediation, and establish a schedule for briefing a planned summary-judgment motion. The text is a party submission, not a court opinion or order, and it does not state how the court ruled on those requests.

Background described by Bernard

According to Bernard’s letter, she was arrested on May 8, 2023, while present at a jail-support action at the NYPD’s Seventh Precinct related to arrests during protest actions concerning the public killing of Jordan Neely on the subway. The letter says she was detained and arraigned on misdemeanor charges, and that NYPD members later publicly released her private address and information accusing her of terrorism-related activity. Bernard initiated this federal action on August 8, 2024. The letter also states that she filed a petition for permission to file a late notice of claim in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, and that no decision had yet been issued on her state-law claims.

Bernard’s arguments

Bernard’s counsel disputed defendants’ assertion that the complaint alleges malicious-prosecution or false-arrest claims. Counsel said the term “malicious prosecution” does not appear in the complaint and that “false arrest” appears only in a discussion of the NYPD’s history of protest policing. Counsel argued that the remaining claims are not defeated simply by the alleged existence of probable cause for the arrest.

The letter further argued that whether force was unreasonable is a fact-specific question and that excessive-force claims can be evaluated even when an arrest is lawful. Bernard’s counsel stated that Bernard did not resist, flee, or disobey a lawful order; was willingly present at the precinct; was suddenly surrounded, thrown against a brick wall, and arrested; and was placed in overly tight handcuffs that officers refused to loosen. Counsel said the incident was recorded by video, including body-worn-camera footage, and depicted in images attached to the complaint.

Requested action and disposition

Bernard asked the court to allow the parties to continue fact discovery, including depositions, and to deny defendants’ requests to stay discovery, forgo mediation, and set a briefing schedule. The letter states that the parties’ deadline to complete fact discovery was April 25, 2025, and that they had not yet conducted depositions. The provided text contains no ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote and therefore does not establish any grant, denial, or other disposition.