Guerrero v. The City Of New York

Background

Tiffany Guerrero originally sued the City of New York, Police Officer Jason Bronstein, Police Officer David Revans, and Police Officer Luis Carrasquillo. By the time of this order, the only remaining claim was a malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Revans, and trial was scheduled to begin on February 24, 2020.

The court considered two motions in limine, which are requests to control what evidence may be presented at trial. The defendant sought to prevent Guerrero from introducing evidence that she had been incarcerated at Rikers Island and from calling Sergeant Richard Alvarado as a trial witness.

Rikers Island Incarceration Evidence

The defendant argued that the criminal court had set bail because Guerrero failed to appear at a prior court date, rather than because of the underlying criminal charges. The court reviewed the transcript of the bail-revocation hearing. Guerrero’s legal-aid attorney offered reasons why the missed court date was not willful, including that Guerrero had forgotten the date, had tried to contact her attorney, and was at home when police executed the arrest warrant.

The assistant district attorney did not address those reasons. Instead, the prosecutor emphasized the alleged assault of a 76-year-old woman, the alleged injuries, eyewitnesses, identification evidence, and the alleged strength of the case. The prosecutor also stated that the People were offering jail time because of the charges and the injuries, and requested $50,000 bail. The criminal court set bail at a $25,000 bond and $10,000 cash.

The court explained that a civil-rights claim under Section 1983 generally requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the claimed harm. The court also explained that an intervening act does not necessarily break the causal connection when the defendant could reasonably foresee that the defendant’s conduct would contribute to an independent decision resulting in a loss of liberty.

The court concluded that there were factual questions about whether it was reasonably foreseeable that facts related to Guerrero’s arrest would be used in the bail arguments and would result in her incarceration. The motion to preclude evidence of Guerrero’s Rikers Island incarceration was therefore DENIED.

Sergeant Alvarado’s Testimony

The defendant argued that Guerrero should not be allowed to call Sergeant Alvarado because neither party listed him as a trial witness in the Joint Pretrial Order. The opinion states that Sergeant Alvarado had been identified in pretrial disclosures and that his deposition had been taken. The court found that his omission from the Joint Pretrial Order was not dispositive, but also found it unclear whether he could provide relevant testimony concerning the remaining claim.

The court directed that a proffer—an advance description of the expected testimony—be provided before jury selection. The body of the opinion directs the plaintiff to be prepared to provide that proffer. The conclusion instead states that the defendant was directed to provide it. The opinion does not resolve this apparent inconsistency, and it does not state that the motion concerning Sergeant Alvarado was granted or denied.

Disposition

The motion to preclude evidence of Guerrero’s Rikers Island incarceration was DENIED. Regarding Sergeant Alvarado, the court required a proffer before jury selection and did not otherwise rule on whether his testimony would be admitted. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.