Harris v. City of New York

Background

Brian Harris sued New York City police employees Lieutenants Angel Leon and John Lane, Detective Kristen Swinkunas, and Officers Antonella Jimenez and Maxwell Baltzer, along with the City of New York. The case arose from Baltzer’s use of a taser against Harris on September 2, 2020, at Mt. Sinai Morningside Hospital. The officers were responding to a shooting report and believed that a blue Chevrolet Tahoe parked outside the emergency room might be connected to the shooting. Harris said that he owned the vehicle with his wife and that his son had been shot. The officers told him to move away from the vehicle, but he refused.

Lane told Harris that he was going to be arrested and later tried to grab Harris’s hands. Harris moved his hands away and said, “please don’t touch me.” Leon then told Baltzer to get and use his taser. Baltzer deployed it, and Harris fell to the ground. Harris was handcuffed, treated at a hospital, and arrested for resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. He was released with a desk appearance ticket. Harris asserted excessive-force claims against the individual defendants and common-law assault and battery claims against the City. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Excessive Force

The court held that a reasonable jury could find that the taser use was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Two of the three main factors favored Harris: the offenses for which he was arrested were misdemeanors and therefore not serious, and the evidence could show that he posed no immediate threat. The video showed that Harris did not use force or physically threaten the officers, and the officers testified that they were not concerned that he had a weapon or dangerous object. The court treated Harris’s refusal to follow instructions and movement of his arm away from the officers as resistance, so the third factor favored the defendants. The court also considered that Harris had received a warning about the taser.

Despite those facts, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the taser use excessive under the total circumstances. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that using a taser after a warning is always reasonable against a resisting person, regardless of whether that person is dangerous or threatening. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the ground that the force was not excessive as a matter of law.

Individual Defendants

The court denied summary judgment to Leon because the evidence showed that he ordered Baltzer to use the taser. The court granted summary judgment to Lane, Swinkunas, and Jimenez. Harris presented his failure-to-intervene theory for the first time in a footnote, and the complaint did not provide individualized allegations against those defendants. In addition, the video showed that only about four and a half seconds passed between Leon’s instruction to get the taser and its deployment. During that time, Lane was trying to control Harris’s arms, and Harris remained noncompliant. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Lane, Swinkunas, or Jimenez had an opportunity to intervene.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a protection from damages for government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. Although the court found that the evidence could establish excessive force, it granted summary judgment to Baltzer and Leon on qualified-immunity grounds. The court concluded that, in September 2020, neither the Supreme Court nor the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had clearly established that an officer could not use a taser against a person who was resisting arrest but was not violent or threatening. The court stated that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. It also identified qualified immunity as an alternative ground for its ruling concerning Lane, Swinkunas, and Jimenez.

Claims Against the City

The court denied summary judgment to the City on Harris’s New York common-law assault and battery claims. Under New York law, an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s torts committed within the scope of employment, even when the employee is individually protected by qualified immunity. The court continued to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—because discovery was largely complete, the legal issues were straightforward, and retaining the claims promoted efficiency. The court stated that the claims against the City survived the motion.

Lost Overtime Wages

The court denied summary judgment on Harris’s claim for lost overtime pay. It held that lost earnings may be recovered if proven with reasonable certainty. Harris submitted pay summaries showing regular overtime before and after the leave connected to the incident, along with sworn testimony that he missed overtime pay he usually received. The court found that this evidence could support a reasonable jury’s award.

Disposition

The court’s final order states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted to Lane, Swinkunas, and Jimenez, and Baltzer and Leon received summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Summary judgment was denied as to the City’s state-law claims and Harris’s lost-overtime claim. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.