Liverpool v. The City of New York

Background

Plaintiff Anton F. Liverpool alleged that, from February 7 through February 12, 2015, while detained at the Anna M. Kross Center, he was assaulted on several occasions by other inmates. He further alleged that an officer watched and sanctioned one assault, that he was later denied medical treatment, and that the warden and officers instigated the assaults or failed to protect him.

Defendants Turhan Gumusdere, Freeman Williams, Sharon Davis, Alisa Nelson, and the City of New York moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the moving party shows that no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a trial and that the law entitles it to judgment.

The Release

The defendants relied on a General Release that Liverpool signed on February 29, 2016, in a separate New York State Supreme Court lawsuit. Liverpool had been represented in that lawsuit, which settled for $15,000. The release covered the City of New York, its past and present officers, employees, representatives, and other persons represented or indemnified by the City. It released all claims, known or unknown, arising from matters occurring through the date of the release.

The court held that the release was clear and unambiguous. Because Liverpool’s claims in this case were based on events occurring in February 2015, before the release was signed, the court held that the release covered those claims. Liverpool did not dispute that he signed the release, was represented by counsel, and received consideration for it.

Liverpool’s Arguments

Liverpool argued that he did not read the release and that his lawyers led him to believe it covered only claims being litigated at the time. The court rejected those arguments, explaining that a clear and unambiguous release is enforced according to its terms unless facts such as fraud, duress, illegality, or mutual mistake support setting it aside. The court also noted that the release itself stated that the signer had read and fully understood it.

Liverpool also argued that the defendants could not rely on the release because they had not asserted it as an affirmative defense in their answer. The court held that defendants may raise an otherwise unpleaded defense at the summary-judgment stage when doing so does not cause undue prejudice, bad faith, or undue delay. The court found no substantial prejudice, bad faith, or dilatory motive here. It credited the explanation that defense counsel discovered the release after reviewing the City’s records and then promptly moved for summary judgment after Liverpool reappeared in the case.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not describe the disposition as either with prejudice or without prejudice.