Bolling v. City of New York

Background

Thomas Bolling, representing himself, alleged that the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, two police officers, and “EMS,” which the court understood to mean Emergency Medical Services, violated his Fourth Amendment rights during a June 3, 2015 incident. Bolling said he called an ambulance for his mother, was asked to ride with her, and was then handcuffed and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital. He alleged that he was detained for several hours and released after being evaluated.

The two named officers and EMS had not been served and had not appeared. The City and the police department moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that a party is entitled to judgment without a trial. The motion argued that Bolling’s claims were barred by a general release he had signed in an earlier related proceeding.

Earlier Release

In 2013, Bolling, represented by counsel, brought a civil-rights action against the City and NYPD personnel concerning an October 6, 2011 incident. In a 2016 settlement, the City agreed to pay him $30,000, and Bolling signed a general release covering claims against the City, its employees and agents, and other listed releasees for matters occurring through the release date. The release had one stated exception: claims arising from an incident on July 27, 2015. The release also stated that the signer had read and fully understood it, and it contained a signature and notarization that appeared to be Bolling’s.

Report and Recommendation and Objection

The court had referred the summary-judgment motion to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Judge Lehrburger recommended granting the motion because the release clearly and broadly barred Bolling’s current claims. Bolling objected, asserting that he had not discussed or signed a release, had not appeared before a notary, and had been misled by his former lawyer.

Because Bolling specifically disputed signing the release, Judge Gardephe reviewed that issue independently rather than using only the more limited review applied to general objections. The court also noted that Bolling had not filed an opposition to the summary-judgment motion, even after receiving additional time to do so. Under the court’s local rules, the factual statements in the City’s submission—including statements about the release—were therefore treated as admitted.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated the settlement agreement and release as contracts. It concluded that the release clearly covered claims existing on April 15, 2016, except claims arising from the July 27, 2015 incident. Because Bolling’s current case was based on the June 3, 2015 interaction with police and EMS personnel, the court held that the release barred these claims.

The court rejected Bolling’s later assertions that he did not sign the release, that his signature was forged, or that the notary acted fraudulently. The release appeared to bear his signature and included a notary’s statement that Bolling had personally appeared and acknowledged signing it. The court also stated that, when a contract is clear, a party’s private understanding generally cannot change its meaning, and a lawyer’s failure to explain a release ordinarily is not enough to cancel it without evidence of fraud or another legal defense. The court further declined to consider allegations and evidence that Bolling could have presented to the magistrate judge but did not.

Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe overruled Bolling’s objection, adopted Judge Lehrburger’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and granted the City and the police department’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motions and close the case. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Bolling permission to proceed without paying appeal-related filing fees.