Days v. Police Department

Background

Selwyn Days brought the underlying civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Eastchester Police Department, the Town of Eastchester, Mario Astarita, George Barletta, Matthew Kiernan, the County of Westchester, and Christopher Calabrese. Days alleged constitutional and state-law violations connected to his 2004 and 2011 murder convictions. The opinion states that he was acquitted after his fifth trial in 2017 and had spent 16 years and 7 months in jail before his release.

After a stipulation, Days dismissed all claims against the Eastchester Defendants and the third-party plaintiffs except claims based on intentional wrongs or reckless conduct. Westchester and Christopher Calabrese then filed a third-party complaint against Eastchester asserting claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, contractual and statutory indemnification, and contribution. They sought a declaration that a 1995 inter-municipal agreement required Eastchester to defend them against Days’s remaining claims at Eastchester’s expense. Eastchester filed a cross-motion seeking dismissal of the third-party complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court first explained that the parties’ requests were procedurally improper as motions for declaratory judgment. Under Rule 57 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, a party seeking a declaration generally must bring an action through a pleading rather than request declaratory relief by motion.

Because the requests concerned claims already pleaded in the third-party complaint, the court construed both declaratory-judgment motions as motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding claims when the required evidentiary record shows no genuine dispute about material facts.

The court found that neither side complied with the Southern District of New York’s requirements for summary-judgment motions. In particular, each failed to provide the required statement of undisputed material facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1. The court also found that the docket was not fully developed regarding the motions. It therefore did not resolve whether the 1995 agreement required Eastchester to defend Westchester or Calabrese.

Disposition

The court’s discussion states that the summary-judgment motions were denied because of the parties’ failure to follow the local rules and the incomplete record. The conclusion states that both declaratory-judgment motions, as construed summary-judgment motions, were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to renew on or before April 12, 2023, in compliance with the local rules and the judge’s individual practices. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 236 and 241.