Hurt JR. v. The City of New York

Background

James Hurt Jr. sued the City of New York, NYPD Sergeant Michael Connizzo, and unidentified NYPD officers. His claims arose from a July 2014 incident in which two people in an unmarked car stopped the livery cab carrying Hurt. Hurt claimed that he was searched, detained, assaulted, and battered, and that an officer later drove the car into him as he ran away. He asserted federal civil-rights theories against Connizzo and the City, as well as New York-law claims for assault, battery, unlawful detention, and negligence.

The case went to a jury. The jury found in Connizzo’s favor on all claims. It also found that an unidentified NYPD officer, other than Connizzo, had assaulted and battered Hurt and had negligently injured him with the unmarked car. The jury found that the unidentified officer was acting within the scope of employment with the City, making the City responsible under the employer-responsibility doctrine. It awarded $500,000 for assault, $500,000 for battery, and $350,000 for negligence. The court noted that the federal civil-rights claims against the City had previously been dismissed on summary judgment and that the jury found no liability on the federal claim against Connizzo.

Motions for judgment as a matter of law

The City moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. It argued that the evidence did not show that an unidentified officer was acting in furtherance of, or within the scope of, City employment. It also argued that the car incident was necessarily intentional rather than negligent.

The court denied the motion. Applying New York’s employer-responsibility law, the court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that the two people who stopped the livery cab were on-duty NYPD officers. The evidence included testimony about the Bronx Anti-Crime Unit’s patrol practices, its use of unmarked cars, its stops of livery cabs, the flashing police lights, and one person displaying a gold shield. The court further held that a reasonable jury could find that the officers’ actions, although wrongful, were connected to police duties and were not undertaken for an apparent personal purpose.

The court also held that a reasonable jury could find that the car struck Hurt negligently rather than intentionally or recklessly. The court viewed the car incident as separate from the earlier assault and noted that the evidence could support a finding that the driver did not intend to hit Hurt, who was struck near the knee by the car’s headlight while it pursued him at night.

Motion for a new trial

The City moved for a new trial under Rule 59(a). The court denied that motion. It concluded that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence because testimony from Hurt and NYPD Officer Frank Siciliano supported the findings concerning the officers’ employment and the negligence claim.

The court also rejected the City’s arguments about the jury instructions and trial procedures. It held that the jury could impose liability on the City based on the conduct of an unidentified NYPD officer, even if Hurt was mistaken in identifying Connizzo as one of the officers. The court found that the instructions correctly allowed the jury to consider the evidence rather than requiring it to accept Hurt’s identification.

The court also upheld its decisions not to reopen the City’s closing argument, not to allow a further response after Hurt’s rebuttal, and not to take judicial notice of a Pennsylvania court’s prior ruling concerning Dr. Ronald Paynter’s expert testimony. The court found that the City had received the relevant jury-instruction information before summations, that the rebuttal was proper and the objection was untimely, and that the request concerning Dr. Paynter was procedurally and evidentially inadequate.

Damages and conditional reduction

The City moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment based on excessive damages. The court granted that motion. A reduction of damages, known as a remittitur, gives the plaintiff a choice between accepting a court-ordered reduction and having a new trial on damages.

For assault, the court reduced the award from $500,000 to $50,000. The court found that the evidence supported emotional distress and mental anguish but described the injury as brief and generally supported, without evidence of psychological treatment, medication, or continuing symptoms of greater severity.

For battery, the court reduced the award from $500,000 to $300,000. The evidence included a dislocated right shoulder, other injuries, follow-up treatment, shoulder surgery, substantial pain, and continuing limited range of motion and physical activity. The court concluded that $300,000 was the highest amount a jury could properly have awarded for past and future pain and suffering.

For negligence, the court reduced the award from $350,000 to $125,000. The evidence included a sprained ankle, knee and finger injuries, and lacerations to the thigh and forearm. The forearm laceration required 23 stitches and left permanent scarring, but the court found no evidence that the other injuries required additional procedures, caused chronic pain, or permanently limited Hurt’s activities.

Disposition

The court denied the City’s motions under Rules 50 and 59(a)(1)(A). It granted the City’s motion under Rule 59(e). Hurt could stipulate to reduced damages and an amended judgment of $475,000, or proceed to a new trial on damages. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.