Vyrkin v. Triboro Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Background

Vladimir Vyrkin, representing himself, sued the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority and Officer Edwin Cabrera over events connected to his September 14, 2017 arrest at the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. Following an earlier ruling by a district judge, the only remaining claim was against Officer Cabrera for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against state actors who violate constitutional rights. The parties consented to trial before Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who held a bench trial on June 15, 2021.

Evidence and findings

The court examined three parts of the incident: Vyrkin’s escort from the toll lanes to the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority building, his detention in a room there, and his transport to the New York City Police Department’s 45th Precinct.

Vyrkin testified that Officer Cabrera pulled him from his vehicle, handcuffed him, chained him to a bench, and transported him in a vehicle where he was lying on an iron floor and restrained by a short chain. Officer Cabrera testified that Vyrkin exited the vehicle himself, was handcuffed, walked normally to the building, and was transported in a normal seated position with a seat belt. Officer Kotas similarly testified that Vyrkin walked normally, did not complain of pain or tight handcuffs, and was secured by a seat belt during transport.

Judge Aaron found Vyrkin generally credible but found his testimony less credible concerning the pain he experienced while walking and whether he wore a seat belt. The court credited Officer Cabrera’s testimony about the use of force and credited Officer Kotas’s testimony that Vyrkin wore a seat belt. The court also reviewed videos showing Vyrkin walking without an apparent impairment, sitting passively and appearing comfortable in the TBTA room, and being uncuffed briefly to use the restroom.

Legal standard

To prevail under § 1983, Vyrkin had to prove that Officer Cabrera acted under color of state law, intentionally or recklessly deprived him of a constitutional right, and proximately caused an injury. The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard to the excessive-force claim. For handcuffing, the question was whether the force was unreasonable or whether the circumstances should have made a reasonable officer aware that the handcuffs were causing pain.

Ruling

The court found that Vyrkin did not prove excessive force during any of the three stages. During the walk to the TBTA building, the video showed that he was walked slowly and carefully and was not pushed or rushed. In the TBTA building, the video did not show objectively unreasonable conduct or distress. During transport, the evidence did not show that Officer Cabrera acted unusually or unreasonably, and the court found that Vyrkin was secured by a seat belt.

The court therefore entered judgment in favor of Officer Cabrera and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Because it found no constitutional violation, the court did not reach Officer Cabrera’s qualified-immunity defense, which can protect a public official from civil damages when the official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law or was reasonably believed not to do so.