Thorpe v. City of New York

Background

Marcus Thorpe sued the City of New York, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the New York City Police Department, Harlem Hospital, and several NYCHHC police officers and supervisors under federal and New York law. The lawsuit arose from Thorpe’s April 12, 2018 arrest at Harlem Hospital after a physical altercation involving Officer Francis Senajor. Thorpe alleged negligence, excessive force, failure to intervene, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, false arrest, and municipal liability based on inadequate training and supervision.

The parties disputed what happened in the hospital lobby. Thorpe testified that Senajor pushed him and struck him in the eye with a baton without provocation. The officers maintained that Thorpe head-butted Senajor and that Senajor used the baton in self-defense. Surveillance video did not resolve the dispute because it lacked sound and did not clearly show the participants’ actions. Officer Jonathan Cardona arrested Thorpe, completed the arrest paperwork, and transported him to Central Booking. Lieutenant Theresa Britto was not present when Thorpe was arrested.

Rulings

The court granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in part and denied it in part. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial that is appropriate when no genuine dispute over an important fact requires a jury’s decision.

The court dismissed all claims against the New York City Police Department and Harlem Hospital because they were not entities that could be sued separately. It dismissed the false-arrest claims against Senajor and Britto because neither officer personally arrested or detained Thorpe. It denied Cardona’s request for summary judgment on the false-arrest claim because disputed evidence could affect whether he had probable cause, meaning a reasonable basis, to arrest Thorpe for assault or disorderly conduct. The court also declined to grant Cardona qualified immunity, which can protect officials when their conduct did not violate clearly established law, because the immunity question depended on disputed facts.

The court dismissed the malicious-prosecution claims against Senajor, Britto, and Cardona. It concluded that Britto and Senajor did not initiate or continue the criminal prosecution and that the evidence supported probable cause for Cardona to swear out an assault complaint. The court also noted that the criminal case’s dismissal on speedy-trial grounds was not a favorable termination for purposes of a federal malicious-prosecution claim.

The court dismissed Thorpe’s claims against Britto for excessive force, assault and battery, and failure to intervene because she was not present and did not use force or have a realistic opportunity to intervene. It did not dismiss the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims involving Cardona because a jury could find that he was close enough to have had a realistic opportunity to stop an unprovoked strike by Senajor. The court also stated that the evidence was sufficient for Thorpe’s excessive-force claim against Senajor to proceed.

The court dismissed the federal conspiracy claim because Thorpe offered speculation, rather than evidence, that the officers agreed to deprive him of his rights. It dismissed the federal municipal-liability claim against the City because Thorpe identified no specific city policy, custom, training failure, or supervision failure that caused the alleged violations. It dismissed the state-law negligence claim because the alleged conduct was intentional and could not also be pursued as ordinary negligence. It also dismissed the state-law negligent-training-and-supervision claim because Thorpe identified no specific rule, regulation, or policy that the municipal defendants violated, and dismissed the negligent-hiring claim because he offered no evidence that the officers had a known tendency to use excessive force or assault people without provocation.

Result and next steps

The claims that remained included specified claims involving Senajor and Cardona, including Thorpe’s false-arrest claim against Cardona and claims concerning excessive force and failure to intervene. The court directed Thorpe and Senajor, Cardona, and Joseph to file an amended final pretrial order addressing the remaining claims and evidence. It also scheduled a final pretrial conference for October 21 and directed the Clerk to remove the motion from the list of open motions. The opinion notes that Sergeant Joseph’s status in the case was unclear.