Airday v. The City Of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:14-cv-08065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Airday v. The City Of New York, Judge Caproni ordered both sides to explain how the court should handle a jury question about policymaking authority.
George Airday, the City of New York, Keith Schwam, and the conduct of the upcoming trial, particularly the allocation of the policymaking-authority question between the judge and jury.
What happened
In Airday v. The City Of New York, George Airday and the defendants submitted proposed jury instructions and verdict sheets before trial. Airday’s proposals would have had the jury decide whether Keith Schwam was a final policymaking authority.
The court noted that controlling Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent says whether an official has final policymaking authority is a legal question for the judge, not the jury. The court also noted that Airday had taken that position before the first trial, while the current proposals took a different approach, and that the defendants did not object.
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered both sides to submit letters by noon on May 28, 2021, explaining their positions. Airday had to address its change in position, and the defendants had to explain why they did not object. The order did not itself decide how the jury would be instructed.
The detailed version
- Airday v. The City Of New York · No. 1:14-cv-08065
- Valerie Caproni
- May 27, 2021
Background
The parties submitted proposed jury instructions and proposed verdict sheets before trial. George Airday’s proposed instruction on municipal liability would have asked the jury to decide whether Keith Schwam was a final policymaking authority. Airday’s proposed verdict sheet similarly would have directed the jury to decide that issue.
The court cited Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent holding that whether an official possessed final policymaking authority is a legal question. Under that precedent, the trial judge must resolve whether the official is a final policymaker under state law before submitting the case to the jury. The court also noted that, in briefing before the first trial, Airday had cited this precedent and argued that courts—not juries—must make that determination. The defendants did not object to Airday’s current proposed instruction or verdict sheet.
Order
The court ordered both parties to submit letters of no more than three double-spaced pages by noon on May 28, 2021. Airday’s letter had to specifically address its change in position between the first trial and the present trial. The defendants’ letter had to explain whether their failure to object meant they had abandoned the cited Second Circuit precedent or were indifferent to whether the jury was correctly instructed on the issue.
This order required additional briefing; it did not resolve the parties’ positions or state the final jury instruction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.