Capak v. Epps
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-04325
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Capak v. Epps: Judge Parker granted Smith’s partial summary-judgment motion on Capak’s separate punitive-damages claim.
Richard J. Capak’s separate punitive-damages claim against Rory Dorall Smith was resolved in Smith’s favor; the ruling did not resolve Capak’s other claims against Smith.
What happened
In Capak v. Epps, photographer and videographer Richard J. Capak alleged that Rory Dorall Smith, who was working as security for Tauheed Epps, struck him while Capak was filming Epps. Capak asserted claims including assault, battery, and negligence, along with a separate claim for punitive damages.
After discovery, Smith asked the court to decide the punitive-damages claim without a trial. Smith argued that New York law does not recognize punitive damages as a separate cause of action. Capak did not address that argument or oppose dismissal of the separate claim, although he argued that exemplary damages could be connected to his other claims.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ruled that Capak had abandoned the separate punitive-damages claim and granted Smith’s motion for partial summary judgment as to punitive damages. The opinion did not resolve Capak’s other claims against Smith in this ruling.
The detailed version
- Capak v. Epps · No. 1:18-cv-04325
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Richard J. Capak brought claims arising from an October 27, 2017 altercation involving Rory Dorall Smith, who was working as part of Tauheed Epps’s security detail. The opinion states that Capak was filming Epps near Rockefeller Plaza when Smith approached and struck him. Capak alleged physical and emotional injuries.
The case included claims for assault, battery, and negligence against Epps and Smith, as well as a negligent hiring and retention claim against Epps. Epps’s motion for summary judgment on punitive damages had previously been granted by Judge Ronnie Abrams. After discovery concerning Smith, Smith moved for partial summary judgment on Capak’s separate Fourth Cause of Action for punitive damages.
Motion and Arguments
Smith argued that the separate punitive-damages claim was not cognizable because, under New York law, punitive damages are not an independent cause of action. Capak did not refute that argument and did not address whether the Fourth Cause of Action should be dismissed. Instead, Capak argued that exemplary damages should be awarded in connection with his other causes of action and stated that he was not abandoning the claim as he had done against Epps.
The court explained that a party opposing summary judgment may be treated as having abandoned a claim when the party fails to respond to the argument supporting judgment on that claim. The court also stated that Capak’s arguments about exemplary damages were not responsive to Smith’s motion, which addressed only the separate Fourth Cause of Action.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker found that Capak had abandoned the Fourth Cause of Action. For that reason, and for the reasons stated in Judge Abrams’s earlier ruling concerning punitive damages against Epps, the court held that Smith was entitled to summary judgment on punitive damages as they related to the Fourth Cause of Action.
The court granted Smith’s motion for partial summary judgment as to punitive damages. It did not consider the irrelevant portions of Capak’s opposition papers. The opinion does not state that the ruling resolved Capak’s other claims against Smith.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.