Banyan v. Sikorski

Background

Jonathan C. Banyan sued Police Officers Craig Sikorski and Joseph Tennariello, Lieutenant Ian Rule, Sergeant John Becerra, and the City of New York. He alleged, among other things, that the officers used excessive force during his arrest on March 20, 2016. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to resolve claims without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result.

The court appointed pro bono counsel for Banyan on November 10, 2020. Counsel filed Banyan’s opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion on February 22, 2021. In an Opinion and Order dated March 26, 2021, the court denied summary judgment on Banyan’s excessive-force claims against Sikorski and Tennariello. It granted summary judgment to Rule and Becerra because Banyan had not addressed the defendants’ arguments concerning those two defendants, and the court treated the claims as abandoned.

Banyan moved for reconsideration of that decision as to Rule and Becerra. He pointed to record evidence that he said created factual disputes about Rule’s use of a baton on his Achilles tendon and Becerra’s use of a taser three times. He also argued that he had expressly abandoned other claims but had not expressly abandoned the claims against Rule and Becerra. Finally, he argued that filing the reconsideration motion showed that he did not intend to abandon those claims.

Court’s analysis

The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court also explained that reconsideration is not meant to provide a second opportunity to present arguments that could have been made earlier.

The court concluded that Banyan’s arguments did not undermine the earlier summary-judgment ruling. Although Banyan identified several factual statements and pieces of evidence, he had not responded in his opposition brief to the defendants’ arguments that Rule’s baton use was objectively reasonable in light of Banyan’s alleged resistance and that Becerra’s taser use was lawful in light of Banyan’s alleged continued resistance.

The court stated that it was not required to search the record independently for facts that might support Banyan’s claims. It was Banyan’s responsibility to identify genuine factual disputes and explain why they mattered to the claims at issue. The court also rejected the argument that only an express statement of abandonment could support that finding. It held that a claim may be treated as abandoned when the party does not respond to the opposing side’s arguments for dismissal.

The court distinguished a case Banyan cited in which a person proceeding without a lawyer sought reconsideration after a case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Here, the court stated, Banyan was represented by counsel and sought to revive claims that he had not pursued in his opposition to summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Banyan’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 182. The opinion did not alter the earlier rulings: summary judgment remained denied as to the excessive-force claims against Sikorski and Tennariello and granted as to the excessive-force claims against Rule and Becerra.