Vasquez v. Doe

Background

Kim Vasquez, proceeding without a lawyer, sued police officers concerning his arrest at the Pavion Apartments on February 20, 2020. The remaining federal claims alleged that Michael Warren, Thomas Murray, Andrew Esposito, and N. Whalen used excessive force; that Patrick Van Cura failed to intervene in Esposito’s use of a Taser; and that Patrick Casey unlawfully seized Vasquez’s money. Vasquez also asserted state-law assault and battery claims.

The police were dispatched after Pavion employees reported that an irate man had touched an employee, attempted to take property, and refused to leave. The court relied on surveillance video, witness accounts, officers’ affidavits, medical records, and Vasquez’s testimony. The court found that the video showed Vasquez striking or shoving Warren, resisting efforts to handcuff him, continuing to struggle after officers gave commands, and reaching toward Warren’s firearm. The court also considered Vasquez’s conflicting account and his claim that the videos had been altered, but found no evidence that the videos were doctored.

Vasquez did not submit the required response to the defendants’ statements of material facts. Judge Seibel nevertheless considered his deposition, sworn complaint, opposition papers, and other submissions rather than treating the defendants’ facts as entirely undisputed.

Excessive force

The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness test, which evaluates the force from the perspective of a reasonable officer under the circumstances. It held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, a protection from damages when an official’s conduct did not violate clearly established law or when a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful.

As to Warren and Esposito’s use of Tasers, the court concluded that Vasquez was actively resisting, posed a threat, and continued struggling despite physical efforts and commands to stop. The court held that the Taser deployments were reasonable, or at least that existing precedent did not clearly establish that the deployments were unlawful in these circumstances. The court also found that a warning was not clearly required and that the rapidly developing struggle made a warning impractical.

The court reached the same result for the punches, physical restraint, and other force attributed to Warren, Murray, and Whalen. It found that Vasquez continued resisting until he was handcuffed and that the officers stopped using force once he stopped resisting. The court held that no reasonable jury could find the challenged force unlawful, or alternatively that qualified immunity applied.

Failure to intervene

The court granted summary judgment to Van Cura on Vasquez’s failure-to-intervene claim. Such a claim depends on an underlying constitutional violation. Because the court had already rejected the excessive-force claim concerning Esposito’s Taser use, the failure-to-intervene claim also failed. In addition, the video showed that Van Cura was not present when Esposito deployed the Taser and therefore had no realistic opportunity to intervene.

Money seizure

The court granted summary judgment to the South Nyack Defendants on Vasquez’s unreasonable-seizure claim. Although the record raised factual questions about whether Casey participated in the initial search or later possessed the money, the court held that the initial seizure of cash from Vasquez’s pockets was supported by probable cause. Multiple witnesses and video evidence indicated that Vasquez had taken cash and credit cards from the Pavion offices. The court held that a claimed failure to return property that was lawfully seized does not, by itself, create a Fourth Amendment seizure claim.

The court noted that Vasquez was not pursuing a separate due-process claim concerning the money. It added that such a claim would fail because New York provides post-deprivation state-law remedies for a random and unauthorized loss of property.

State-law claims and disposition

After eliminating the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state claims—in favor of deciding the state assault and battery claims. The court granted both the Orangetown Defendants’ and South Nyack Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Vasquez’s federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.