Kosmidis v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Rochon
- 1:18-cv-08413
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kosmidis v. Port Authority, Judge Rochon rejected a proposed jury instruction and ordered discussions about qualified-immunity questions.
The plaintiffs, the four named Port Authority police defendants, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, particularly regarding the handling of qualified-immunity issues at trial.
What happened
In Kosmidis v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the defendants asked the court to rule before trial that the individual police defendants were protected from Constantino Kosmidis’s false-arrest claims because of qualified immunity, a legal protection for government officials in some circumstances.
The court had previously refused to decide that protection on summary judgment because disputed facts could affect whether there was probable cause, or an objectively reasonable basis, to arrest Kosmidis. The court said the factual record had not changed and would not reconsider that earlier ruling.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also ruled that the jury would not receive the defendants’ proposed instruction asking it to decide qualified immunity. The parties must instead discuss possible written questions for the jury about the disputed facts and submit a joint letter listing the questions, proposed procedure, and any objections by February 28.
The detailed version
- Kosmidis v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:18-cv-08413
- Rochon
- Feb. 24, 2023
Background
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Port Authority Police Sergeant Bernard Buckner, Port Authority Police Officer Steven O’Shea, Port Authority Police Officer Alexander Velez, Jr., and Port Authority Police Officer Joseph Riccardi, Jr. asked the court in a pretrial brief to rule that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from Constantino Kosmidis’s false-arrest claims.
Qualified immunity is a legal protection that may shield government officials from liability when their conduct was not clearly unlawful under the circumstances. On September 28, 2021, the court declined to grant summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity because factual disputes could affect whether the individual defendants had probable cause or arguable probable cause to arrest Kosmidis. The court stated that the factual record had not changed and therefore would not revisit that earlier ruling.
Ruling
The court will not give the jury the defendants’ proposed instruction on qualified immunity. It explained that the court, not the jury, must make the ultimate legal decision about qualified immunity after the jury resolves any disputed facts that matter to that decision.
The defendants alternatively proposed giving the jury special interrogatories—written questions about factual issues relevant to qualified immunity. The court directed the plaintiff and defendants to meet and confer about those questions and submit a joint letter by February 28. The letter must describe the requested procedure for presenting the questions to the jury and include the proposed questions, along with references to any objections. The order does not itself decide whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.