Fernandez v. City Of New York

Background

David Fernandez and Joey Fernandez, who are brothers, brought claims under Section 1983—a federal civil-rights law that allows suits for certain violations committed under state authority—and New York state law against New York City and several New York City police officers. The claims arose from a November 3, 2015 incident at Joey Fernandez’s home. During an argument, Joey injured David. David called 911, received medical treatment, and both brothers were arrested after police officers arrived.

The defendants moved for reconsideration of the court’s April 30, 2020 summary-judgment order. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute over a fact important to the claim. In that earlier order, the court denied summary judgment on some claims, including David’s Section 1983 excessive-force claims against Officer Marco Padilla concerning David’s nose injury and injuries allegedly caused by tight handcuffs.

Legal Standard

The court explained that reconsideration under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3 is an extraordinary remedy. It may be warranted when there is a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. A reconsideration motion cannot be used to present new arguments or reargue issues already decided. The moving party must identify controlling law or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result.

David’s Nose Injury

The defendants argued that David’s nose had already been injured and was bleeding before the police arrived, and that David had not offered expert testimony proving that Officer Padilla caused or worsened the injury. The court rejected the claim that it had overlooked the earlier injury. The April 30 order had expressly discussed evidence that Joey’s bedroom door struck David in the face and caused bleeding.

The court stated that the evidence presented a factual dispute about whether David’s fractured nose was caused by the earlier incident involving Joey or by Padilla, who allegedly slammed David’s face into a police vehicle. The court said it could not resolve that dispute as a matter of law. It also concluded that a reasonable jury could rely on David’s account without expert testimony. The defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied as to the nose injury.

David’s Handcuffing Injuries

The defendants also argued that the connection between David’s wrist pain shortly after his arrest and his diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome more than a year later was too uncertain to proceed without medical expert testimony. They pointed to medical records and the absence of continuing wrist-pain complaints in one later record.

The court found that it had already considered those facts. It noted that David complained of pain in both wrists on the day of his arrest and that he was later diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in his right wrist. The court concluded that whether tight handcuffing caused the condition was a factual issue for a jury. Although the defendants could argue that the timing weakened David’s claim, the court would not decide causation as a matter of law. The court also rejected the defendants’ reading of the cases they cited, finding that those cases did not establish that expert testimony was always required for this type of claim.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion. The opinion does not state that the case as a whole was resolved by this order.