Andrews v. Green

Background

Michael D. Andrews, who represented himself, sued the City of New York and Theresa Green, identified as a Human Resources Administration special officer. His claims arose from physical altercations at the Human Resources Administration building in Manhattan in 2017. He asserted federal and state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and municipal liability.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision based on the record when the court determines that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial, or that a party is entitled to judgment under the law. Magistrate Judge Cott issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Andrews objected, but defendants did not.

Court’s review of the recommendation

Because Andrews’s objections were general and did not specifically challenge the recommendation’s reasoning, Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than reconsidering the challenged issues from the beginning. She found no clear error.

Claims receiving summary judgment for defendants

The recommendation concluded that the false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims could not proceed against Green because she was not personally involved in Andrews’s arrest or detention. The recommendation also gave a separate reason for rejecting the malicious-prosecution claim: Andrews could not establish a sufficient deprivation of liberty.

The municipal-liability claim against the City of New York was rejected because Andrews did not show that his arrest and prosecution resulted from a City policy or custom. The recommendation also advised granting defendants’ motion as to Andrews’s state-law claims because he did not comply with New York’s notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive-force claim

The recommendation advised denying summary judgment on the excessive-force claim. It found genuine disputes about how the altercations began and unfolded. It also found that the medical evidence was at least partly consistent with Andrews’s account and that the evidence of injury was sufficient to prevent resolving the claim as a matter of law before trial.

Disposition

Judge Caproni adopted Judge Cott’s report and recommendation in full. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The excessive-force claim therefore remained for further proceedings, while the other claims addressed in the recommendation did not proceed on the grounds stated there.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The parties were directed to discuss possible trial dates and to notify the court if they wanted a settlement conference.