Pitre v. The City Of New York

Background

The court had dismissed Edward Pitre’s action during the fourth day of trial and explained that dismissal in a written decision filed on January 29, 2024. The court identified three principal reasons: it believed Pitre was attempting to defraud the court by failing to disclose an earlier state-court lawsuit based on the same alleged accident; it found a pattern of poor lawyering and lack of good faith; and it found that Pitre had presented little, if any, evidence from which a jury could rule in his favor.

The earlier state-court lawsuit alleged that Pitre slipped and fell while walking at premises associated with J&F Meat Market and its parent company. In the federal case, Pitre testified that he fell while getting off a New York City Fire Department utility vehicle. The court found these accounts inconsistent. It also found substantial overlap between the injuries and economic damages claimed in the two lawsuits. Pitre had received a $65,000 settlement in the earlier lawsuit, and the City accepted $20,619.67 in full satisfaction of an approximately $146,000 lien related to compensation and medical expenses paid to or for Pitre.

Motion for Reconsideration

Pitre argued that he had disclosed the earlier lawsuit and that the City knew about it. The court agreed that it had been mistaken to the extent it believed Pitre had failed to disclose the lawsuit. The court noted that the City had been involved in the earlier matter and that Pitre had referred to it during his deposition.

The court nevertheless concluded that the correction did not change the dismissal. It found that Pitre still attempted to mislead the court and jury by presenting a different account of how he was injured and by seeking damages for injuries for which he had already been compensated, at least in part. The court also relied on Pitre’s trial testimony that he had received no other money related to his injuries, which the court found was false because of the earlier settlement and related payments.

The court stated that poor lawyering alone would not justify dismissal, but found that Pitre himself played a significant role in the conduct that wasted time and resources. It also found that Pitre had failed to provide evidence supporting several claims, including race and retaliation claims, claims involving leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, claims involving an accommodation or leave, and claims that Jan Borodo and Joseph M. Mastropietro personally discriminated or retaliated against him.

The court therefore denied Pitre’s motion for reconsideration. It also denied his alternative request to dismiss the state and city claims without prejudice so he could refile them in state court. The court stated that it was exercising its inherent authority to dismiss the action with prejudice as a sanction for conduct that abused the judicial process.

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions

The defendants sought sanctions. The court decided to award attorneys’ fees and costs, but did not require the defendants to submit a traditional fee application. Instead, it awarded a substantially reduced amount because the defendants were represented by the City’s Corporation Counsel’s office and because dismissal with prejudice had already been imposed.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs to the extent set out in the order. It awarded $10,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs against Pitre and his attorneys, jointly and severally. The court directed that judgment be entered dismissing Pitre’s claims with prejudice and awarding those fees and costs.