Torres v. NYC Police Department

Background

Wilfredo Torres proceeded without a lawyer and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourth Amendments. The opinion explains that the action initially named the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Buildings, and Bellevue South Associates L.P. The court previously dismissed the claim against the Police Department because City agencies cannot be sued as separate entities and construed the complaint as asserting claims against the City of New York. Torres later amended the complaint to add Sergeant Colby Wright, Sergeant Nicholas Macchio, Officer Michael Traverzo, and Officer Krzysztof Fryc.

The claims against the City of New York and those four officers arose from alleged incidents involving Torres’s apartment on September 28, 2015, and April 28, 2016. After discovery, the City Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the undisputed evidence requires judgment without a trial.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Fox recommended granting the City Defendants’ motion. He treated the City Defendants’ factual statements as admitted because Torres did not specifically controvert them.

For the claims against Fryc, Traverzo, and Macchio arising from the September 2015 incident, Judge Fox concluded that the emergency-aid doctrine justified entering Torres’s apartment without a warrant. That doctrine permits warrantless action when officers reasonably need to assist people who are seriously injured or threatened with serious injury. Judge Fox also concluded that, after entering, the officers reasonably searched for noxious fumes reportedly entering the apartment.

For the claim against Wright arising from the April 2016 incident, Judge Fox concluded that Torres had not shown Wright was personally involved in municipal employees’ entry into the apartment. Judge Fox further concluded that, even if Wright’s personal involvement had been shown, the conduct was reasonable under the emergency-aid doctrine based on information communicated by New York University personnel and information from Torres’s surgeon.

Judge Fox also concluded that the City Defendants acted properly in seizing and transporting Torres to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation under New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, based on Torres’s conduct and Dr. Aaron Buckland’s on-the-scene medical assessment. In addition, Judge Fox found that the individual City Defendants would be protected by qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate rights that were clearly established at the time. Finally, he found that Torres had provided no evidence of a City policy, custom, or practice that caused a violation of his constitutional rights.

Objections and Review

Torres filed objections that broadly addressed five reports and recommendations issued in the action. His letter repeated assertions that he was on a federal-government terrorism list and that the incidents were part of domestic assassination programs. Apart from noting that Judge Fox had recommended granting the City Defendants’ motion, the letter did not specifically address the factual or legal findings in the report. Torres also stated that Judge Fox had relied on inaccurate or incomplete data, but did not identify the data he challenged or request more time to object.

Because Torres’s objections were general and repeated earlier arguments rather than specifically challenging particular findings, the court reviewed the report for clear error. The court found no clear error in Judge Fox’s conclusions concerning the emergency-aid doctrine, the psychiatric evaluation, qualified immunity, or the absence of evidence supporting a City policy, custom, or practice.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the City Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed Torres’s federal claims against the City Defendants and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims also asserted against them. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the action as to the City of New York, Wright, Macchio, Traverzo, and Fryc. The opinion does not state a disposition of claims against the other defendants listed in the caption.