Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood ordered one trial instead of separate liability and damages phases.
Mary Tardif and the City of New York, through the organization of their trial and the evidence that may be presented.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the court considered whether to divide the trial into one phase about liability and another about damages if liability were established.
The court noted that evidence about Ms. Tardif’s injuries could also help determine how much force Sergeant Mattera used and whether that force was reasonable. The court also noted that the Second Circuit had not definitively addressed whether dividing such trials is permissible.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ordered that the trial would not be divided. Instead, one trial would allow evidence about both liability and damages.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- May 6, 2022
Issue
The court decided whether to divide the trial into separate phases: one to determine liability and, if liability were found, another to determine damages.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that, for assault and battery claims under New York law involving a law enforcement officer’s use of force, the extent of the plaintiff’s injury is relevant to whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. Evidence about Mary Tardif’s alleged injuries could therefore bear not only on damages but also on the amount of force Sergeant Mattera used, if any, and whether that force was reasonable.
The court also noted that the Second Circuit had not definitively established whether liability and damages may be tried separately when the objective reasonableness of a law enforcement officer’s use of force is at issue. It further cited a decision stating that bifurcation could improperly exclude evidence of physical and psychological injuries from the liability phase.
Ruling
The court ordered that the trial would not be bifurcated. It directed that a single trial would be conducted, and that evidence relating to both liability and damages could be introduced. This order did not decide the underlying liability or damages issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.