Sierra v. City of New York

Background

On October 25, 2023, the district court approved a class-action settlement. The settlement covered people detained, arrested, or subjected to force by police officers on June 4, 2020, on East 136th Street between Brook Avenue and Brown Place in the Bronx during the Mott Haven protest. It also covered people who received a summons or desk appearance ticket after an arrest at that location.

The settlement sent disputes about whether three people belonged in the class to Magistrate Judge Gorenstein for a final determination. The parties resolved two disputes. The remaining dispute concerned Quase Beasley. Plaintiffs conceded that Beasley was not arrested or detained as those terms were used in the settlement. They argued that she was nevertheless subjected to police force because an officer pushed another protester, who then fell or moved backward into Beasley and stepped on her foot.

Evidence

The court reviewed Beasley’s affidavit and a roughly 20-minute video she recorded. The video showed police officers forming a line to block protesters and directing people toward the sidewalk while pushing people in that direction. The court found that an officer pushed a man’s upper arm and likely pushed him a second time. The second push caused the man to move to his right and contact Beasley. The video did not clearly show whether Beasley made a sound at the time, but several minutes later she said that she thought she had broken or re-broken her foot.

Interpretation of “force”

The court treated the settlement as a contract because a consent decree is principally an agreement between the parties. It interpreted the word “force” according to the parties’ intent and ordinary meaning. The court found that the settlement materials used “force” to refer to excessive-force claims, but did not require a class member to prove that the force was excessive in relation to a particular police action.

The court used civil battery as a framework. Under New York law, civil battery generally requires bodily contact, offensive contact, and an intent to make the contact without consent. The court explained that the officer’s contact with the other protester met that low threshold. It further relied on the rule that an intentional act against one person can create liability for harmful or offensive contact with another person when that contact results indirectly.

The City’s argument and ruling

The City argued that the parties did not intend the settlement to cover indirect force. The court rejected that argument because the City offered no evidence that both sides shared that understanding. Because the settlement’s use of “force” referred to the law concerning excessive force, and that framework could include indirect consequences of a battery, the court concluded that Beasley was “subject to force by” a police officer and fell within the class.

The opinion is a final determination of Beasley’s inclusion in the previously approved settlement class; it does not decide the underlying claims of all class members.