DeVincenzi v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In DeVincenzi v. The City of New York, Judge Broderick denied summary judgment on excessive force, dismissed the City and unidentified officers, and allowed the claim against Rivera to proceed.
The estate’s excessive-force claim against Officer Paule Rivera may proceed past summary judgment. The City of New York was dismissed, the unidentified John Doe officers were dismissed without prejudice, and the other claims were dismissed with prejudice under the parties’ stipulation.
What happened
In DeVincenzi v. The City of New York, Sara DeVincenzi sued for the estate of Benjamin DeVincenzi after his 2016 arrest by New York City police. The parties disputed whether Officer Paule Rivera or another officer used force against Benjamin, who ended up on the ground and later told his mother that Rivera had punched him.
The estate’s only remaining claim was that Rivera used excessive force. The estate relied on Benjamin’s statements and photographs after the arrest. The defendants argued that the statements were hearsay, but the court found they could qualify as statements made during the stress of a startling event. Whether Benjamin made the statements and whether they were credible were left for a jury to decide.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because genuine factual disputes could support the excessive-force claim. The parties had agreed to dismiss all other claims with prejudice; the City of New York was dismissed, and claims against the unidentified John Doe officers were dismissed without prejudice. The court also declined to consider proposed state-law tort claims because they were not properly pleaded, lacked the required notice of claim, and were untimely.
The detailed version
- DeVincenzi v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06012
- Vernon Broderick
- June 1, 2023
Background
Sara DeVincenzi brought the case as administrator for the estate of Benjamin DeVincenzi. The complaint originally asserted seven claims, including civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, false arrest, excessive force, failure to intervene, malicious abuse of process, municipal liability, and retaliation for protected expression.
The events arose from Benjamin’s July 8, 2016 arrest. He was with an acquaintance whom Officer Paule Rivera was pursuing. The defendants said Benjamin stood in Rivera’s way and refused to move for 10 to 15 seconds. Rivera arrested him for obstructing governmental administration. The parties agreed that Benjamin ended up on the ground, but disputed whether an officer used force against him or whether he simply fell. Benjamin was handcuffed and taken to a police vehicle. He later received medical treatment, was charged, and was released on his own recognizance. The charge was later dismissed. Benjamin died in January 2018.
Claims Remaining at Summary Judgment
After the defendants moved for summary judgment, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims except the excessive-force claim. The stipulation stated that the other claims would be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claim concerned whether Rivera used force that was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
The estate relied principally on statements that Benjamin allegedly made to his mother. She testified that Benjamin told her by telephone, while still in the police car, that Rivera had punched him in the face. She also testified that Benjamin identified Rivera as the officer who punched him when Rivera entered the ambulance. The defendants disputed whether Benjamin made either statement and argued that the statements were inadmissible hearsay.
Court’s Analysis of the Excessive-Force Claim
The court held that the statements could fall within the hearsay exception for an “excited utterance”—a statement related to a startling event and made while the speaker remained under the event’s stress. The court found that the first statement was made close to the alleged assault and that the second statement was related to the alleged assault while Benjamin was still under its stress. Whether the statements were actually made and whether they were credible were matters for a jury.
Because the evidence created a genuine dispute about material facts, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the excessive-force claim. The court did not decide whether Rivera actually used excessive force.
State-Law Claims
In opposition to summary judgment, the estate referred to state-law assault and battery claims. The court found that the complaint did not plead those claims; its general reference to supplemental jurisdiction was insufficient. The court also found that the estate had not filed the notice of claim required for tort claims against the City or its employees. In addition, the court stated that the claims would be untimely because the complaint was filed almost three years after the alleged assault, beyond New York’s one-year-and-90-day period. The court therefore did not consider those state-law claims and stated that the estate could not pursue them.
Other Dispositions
The court denied the defendants’ request to seal disciplinary records concerning Rivera, citing the strong presumption of public access to documents used at the summary-judgment stage. It deferred ruling on the admissibility of those records because it did not need to consider them to decide the motion.
The City of New York and the John Doe defendants were dismissed. The court specifically dismissed the claims against John Doe Officers 1–9 without prejudice because they had not appeared and had not been identified or named in an amended complaint. The court’s conclusion did not state a prejudice qualifier for the City’s dismissal.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.