Fernandez v. New York City

Background

Randy Fernandez, who was representing himself, sued the City of New York, Officer Chopra, and Captain Griffin. He alleged that on June 29 or 30, 2018, he was held on a transport bus for nearly thirteen hours after arriving at Rikers Island. He said he was handcuffed and shackled and had no access to food, water, or a bathroom, forcing him to urinate and defecate on himself. He sought damages.

Before this case was resolved, Fernandez filed two other personal-injury claims with the New York City Comptroller concerning incidents at Rikers Island in February and March 2019. He was represented by counsel in those matters. The claims were settled on November 5, 2019, and Fernandez signed two releases as part of the settlements.

The releases discharged the City of New York and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives from all civil-rights claims and other claims, whether known or unknown, arising from any matter occurring through the date of the releases. The defendants argued that these releases barred the claims in this case.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

The defendants initially received permission to file a motion addressing whether Fernandez had released his claims, but they filed a motion for summary judgment because they relied on the releases, which were outside the pleadings. Summary judgment is a decision entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that Fernandez received adequate notice that the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment. The defendants identified the motion as a summary judgment motion, served a notice explaining the evidence required to oppose it, and gave Fernandez an opportunity to respond. The court also treated numbered paragraphs in his opposition as a response to the defendants’ statement of facts, even though he did not submit the required separate counter-statement.

Enforcement of the Releases

Applying New York contract law, the court found that the releases were clear and unambiguous. Their broad language covered claims that Fernandez already had, including claims he knew nothing about, based on events occurring before November 5, 2019. The court held that the releases could bar claims arising from events different from the specific incidents settled in the earlier matters and could cover claims already being litigated when the releases were signed.

The court rejected Fernandez’s arguments concerning alleged confusion about the defendants’ counsel in this case. The court stated that any defense to enforcement had to involve the negotiation or signing of the releases, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence. Fernandez did not claim that such misconduct occurred during the negotiation or execution of the releases. The court also emphasized that he was represented by counsel when he negotiated and signed them.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court held that Fernandez’s agreements to release claims against the City of New York and its agents through the date of the releases barred the claims in this case. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and the case. The opinion does not state that the motion or case was dismissed with or without prejudice.