Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Kimba Wood denied two reconsideration motions and granted one, setting service-dog and trial-evidence rules.
Mary Tardif and the City of New York were affected by the court’s trial-management and evidence rulings: Tardif may use the NYPD Patrol Guide and introduce evidence about John Doe No. 8, but Daisy must remain out of the jury’s view during trial.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, Mary Tardif asked the court to reconsider limits on her service dog’s visibility during trial and the admissibility of an NYPD Patrol Guide provision. The City asked the court to reconsider allowing evidence about John Doe No. 8’s conduct.
The court said reconsideration requires a party to identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice. It found that Tardif had not met that standard regarding her service dog. The court allowed the dog to accompany her and alert her to a possible seizure, but required it to remain under a covered table and out of the jury’s view. The court found the Patrol Guide’s minimum-force standard compatible with the legal standard for reasonable force and found no reason to change its ruling on John Doe No. 8’s conduct.
Judge Kimba Wood denied Tardif’s motion concerning her service dog, granted Tardif’s motion concerning NYPD Patrol Guide § 203-11, and denied the City’s motion concerning John Doe No. 8. Tardif may introduce the Patrol Guide and evidence about John Doe No. 8’s conduct.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 20, 2022
Background
The court considered three motions asking it to reconsider earlier rulings in the case:
- Mary Tardif asked the court to reconsider its ruling that her service dog, Daisy, could accompany her in the courtroom but could not be visible to the jury.
- Tardif asked the court to reconsider its ruling concerning the admissibility of New York Police Department Patrol Guide § 203-11.
- The City of New York asked the court to reconsider its ruling allowing Tardif to present testimony that John Doe No. 8 pushed her on March 21, 2012, before her interaction with Sergeant Mattera.
The court also granted Tardif permission to file a declaration supporting her service-dog motion and considered that declaration.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error that must be corrected to prevent serious injustice. The moving party generally must identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its prior conclusion.
Service dog
The court denied Tardif’s motion. It found that she had not identified controlling decisions or relevant information that the court had overlooked. The court found the state-court decision cited by Tardif distinguishable because it involved a child witness and a state statute providing special protection for child witnesses. The court also found that the study Tardif cited addressed a different question involving child witnesses.
The court recognized that Daisy could alert Tardif to an impending epileptic seizure and allowed Daisy to accompany Tardif during trial for that purpose. But the court stated that Tardif had not suggested that keeping Daisy out of the jury’s sight would make the dog ineffective. The court also said that Daisy’s visibility could distract jurors or create undue sympathy for Tardif, and that some jurors might fear dogs. It therefore required Daisy to remain next to Tardif under a covered table, invisible to the jury. The court rejected a proposed jury instruction as an adequate substitute for keeping Daisy out of view.
The court reiterated related accommodations and instructions: the lunch period would be extended to 45 minutes so Tardif could walk Daisy; Tardif could use the courthouse cafeteria; she should address any noise from Daisy’s collar tags; she could ask counsel to request that statements be repeated if she became distracted; and she and Daisy should arrive 30 minutes before trial and try to avoid entering or leaving with jurors. The court also stated that Tardif could use the courthouse’s public entrances and elevators and did not need to hide from jurors outside the courtroom.
NYPD Patrol Guide
The court granted Tardif’s motion concerning Patrol Guide § 203-11. It held that the Guide’s requirement to use the “minimum necessary force” was compatible with the objective-reasonableness standard. Tardif was therefore permitted to introduce that provision.
John Doe No. 8
The court denied the City’s motion concerning John Doe No. 8. Relying on reasons discussed at the final pretrial conference and recorded in an earlier order, the court permitted Tardif to introduce evidence concerning John Doe No. 8’s conduct.
Disposition
The court denied Tardif’s motion regarding her service dog, granted Tardif’s motion regarding the NYPD Patrol Guide, and denied the City’s motion regarding John Doe No. 8. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 438, 456, and 459.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.