Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-06835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market, Judge Daniels ordered more witness testimony before deciding both summary-judgment motions in the defamation case.
Aasir Azzarmi, 55 Fulton Market, and Angel Palma are affected. The order requires further proceedings concerning Azzarmi’s defamation claim and the testimony of three of her witnesses, but does not finally decide the claim or either summary-judgment motion.
What happened
Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market concerns Aasir Azzarmi’s claim that Angel Palma and 55 Fulton Market employees falsely accused her of stealing at a grocery store. Azzarmi, who represented herself, described two incidents, while the defendants denied that either incident occurred and said she fabricated them.
After discovery ended, both sides asked for summary judgment, which would have resolved the case without a trial if no important factual dispute remained. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses recommended denying both motions, but the district judge found that the record relied heavily on unsworn witness statements that had not been tested through depositions or testimony under oath.
Judge George B. Daniels recommitted both motions to Magistrate Judge Moses for further development of the facts. He ordered an evidentiary hearing for sworn testimony from Stephanie Acosta, Teresa Sorrento, and Anthony Russo, including whether they could testify at trial consistently with their written statements; he did not decide the summary-judgment motions on their merits.
The detailed version
- Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market · No. 1:20-cv-06835
- George Daniels
- Aug. 10, 2023
Background
Aasir Azzarmi brought a diversity action against 55 Fulton Market and Angel Palma. Azzarmi alleged that Palma, a grocery manager, accused her of being a thief in front of other customers on October 20, 2019. She also alleged that another store employee later accused her of being a known shoplifter and denied her admission to the store on May 15, 2020. The defendants denied that either encounter occurred and contended that Azzarmi fabricated both incidents.
Azzarmi represented herself. Her claims relied substantially on declarations from Stephanie Acosta, Teresa Sorrento, and Anthony Russo. The opinion states that the declarations were unsworn, not notarized, and had not been tested through depositions. The defendants questioned the authenticity and credibility of some of the declarations. The record also contained inconsistencies concerning Azzarmi’s appearance and use of a wheelchair during the alleged incidents.
Discovery closed on October 7, 2022. Afterward, both Azzarmi and the defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued a report recommending that both motions be denied. Neither side objected to that report.
Court’s reasoning
Judge Daniels concluded that the three witnesses’ statements created an evidentiary problem that needed further development. The court explained that the declarations might be inadmissible at trial because they were unsworn and that the witnesses had not been deposed. It was also unclear whether the witnesses were available to testify at trial or whether their testimony would match their declarations.
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), which permits a court to give a party an opportunity to properly support or address a factual assertion when the evidence supporting it is inadequate. The court determined that taking sworn testimony could provide that opportunity and help remedy the gap in the factual record.
Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels recommitted both summary-judgment motions to Magistrate Judge Moses for further development of the factual record. He directed Magistrate Judge Moses to hold an evidentiary hearing and take sworn testimony from Acosta, Sorrento, and Russo. The magistrate judge must determine whether each witness is available for trial and can provide testimony consistent with the witness’s declaration. The court stated that if a witness does not appear, it will assume that the witness is unable or unwilling to testify at trial.
The order did not grant or deny either summary-judgment motion on the merits. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motions on the docket while the additional factual proceedings take place.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.