Maldonado v. Town Of Greenburgh

Background

Nancy Maldonado brought the action as administratrix of the Estate of Jonathan Maldonado against the Town of Greenburgh, Police Officer Jean-Paul Lara, Lieutenant Gregory P. Attalienti, Police Officer Richard Maguire, and Detective/Paramedic Sean Freeman. The claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and New York law.

The court previously dismissed the wrongful-death claim. On September 26, 2024, it granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide whether the evidence requires judgment without a trial. In that ruling, the court excluded Dr. Baden’s opinions about the cause of Maldonado’s death; dismissed the deliberate-indifference, conspiracy, and supervisory-liability claims; and held that Lara was protected by qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim. The court also stated that the qualified-immunity ruling applied to the related state assault-and-battery claim.

The claims identified as remaining were excessive force against Maguire, Freeman, and Attalienti; assault and battery under New York law against those same three Defendants; negligence under New York law against all Defendants; conscious pain and suffering against all Defendants; and respondeat superior liability against Greenburgh.

Arguments Presented

In supplemental briefing, the Defendants argued that the excessive-force claims should be limited to the period between Maldonado’s initial encounter with police and the time he was handcuffed. They also argued that the Plaintiff lacked evidence of causation and therefore should not recover damages connected to Maldonado’s death; that Dr. Milovanovic should not be allowed to offer an opinion about causation; that all claims against Lara should be dismissed; and that Attalienti should be dismissed from the action.

The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ arguments. The court construed the supplemental briefing as a motion for reconsideration of the earlier decision. Reconsideration is an exceptional procedure generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, previously unavailable new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. It is not ordinarily a way to repeat arguments that could have been made earlier.

Ruling

The court found that the Defendants’ arguments were generally an effort to take a second opportunity to challenge summary judgment. The Defendants had previously had an opportunity to make the arguments, or similar arguments, at summary judgment. The court stated that, where appropriate, the Defendants could raise the arguments at the close of the Plaintiff’s case or in a motion asking to exclude evidence.

Because the Defendants identified no intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error, Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion for reconsideration. The court scheduled a telephone status conference for July 29, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion flag at Docket No. 243.