Triolo v. Nassau County, No. 19-4107 (2d Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against a detective with the Nassau County Police Department for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and New York state law. Plaintiff also filed suit against Nassau County under the theory of respondeat superior. The district court vacated the jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff and dismissed the claims against both defendants.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the detective where the detective's actions, though wrong, were not so wrong that no reasonable officer could have determined that the challenged action was lawful. Therefore, the detective is entitled to qualified immunity in regard to the section 1983 claim. In regard to the New York state law claim, the court concluded that the record could only support a finding of callousness or indifference in making the arrest, and such a finding does not preclude the legal conclusion that the detective acted in subjective good faith.
However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the County because the County remains vicariously liable under New York law for the compensatory damages because (1) municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity, (2) municipal employers may be vicariously liable on state law claims brought against their police officer employees, (3) a principal remains liable for damages caused by its agent, even when that agent is individually immune, and (4) the detective was acting within the scope of his employment when he arrested plaintiff. The court explained that, even if the detective is shielded from personally paying for the damages he caused by falsely arresting plaintiff, the County remains liable for those damages under New York state law. The court remanded for entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor against the County in the amount of $150,000 and for such other proceedings as may be appropriate.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.