Williams v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Williams v City of New York 2013 NY Slip Op 33960(U) September 18, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 42210/2003 Judge: Sylvia G. Ash Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] 4221012003 Decision and order ...OTO. 9118/13 Page 1 of 1279 J At an IAS Term, Part 20 of the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, held in and for the County of Kings, atthe Courthouse, Ht Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 18th day of September, 2013 . PRESENT: HON. SYLVIAG.ASH, Justice. -----------------------------------X T ARRELL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff(s ), ECISION AND ORDER dex # 42210/2003 - against - THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WILLIAM DANCHAK, RICHARD E. PIGNATELLI, JAMES E. HALLERAN, EDWARD J. DEIGHAN and MICHAELE. KNOTT, Defendant(s). - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X The following papers numbered 1 to 4 read herein: ' a ers Numbered Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations)_ _ _ _ _ __ __ 2 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _.Affidavit (Affirmation)_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 3 Other Papers_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ 4 Defendants, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WILLIAM DANC AK, RICHARD E. PIGNATELLI, JAMES E. HALLERAN, EDWARD J. DEIGHAN and ICHAEL E. KNOTT (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ..City"), move for an order (1) dismissing Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety against Michael E. Knott; (2) granting them leave to end their answer to add the affirmative defense of statute of limitations, and upon so doing, di missing the First and Fourth Causes of Action in Plaintiff's complaint insofar as it asserts stat law claims; and (3) dismissing the complaint in its entirety against all Defendants pursuant to CPLR §321 l(a][7] and §3212. i A1<; \\~1. ~<; ~L ~~ ~ r "~~~(;~ v,'t\3\'J 03\\ .1 c!j~\~ ;) Printed: 9/30/2015 [* 2] 4221012003 Decision and order ,..OTO. 9/18113 Paoe 2 of 1279 Plaintiff, TARRELL WILLIAMS, solely opposes the City's application to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on his claim for use of excessive force under 42 u~ :c § 1983. Thus, to the extent that the City's application for summary judgment is unopposed by Plaintiff, it is hereby GRANTED. With regards to the City's motion for summary judgment on Plai iff's claim for use of excessive force under 42 USC §1983 (First Cause of Action), that portion fthe City's motion is DENIED. Background On July 31, 2001, Defendant Police Officers, Danchak, Deighan, alleran and Pignatelli, discharged their service weapons at Plaintiff multiple times resulting in pers nal injuries. The facts surrounding how Plaintiff crune to be shot are in serious dispute. According to the City, Defendant Police Officers Danchak, Deighan, alleran and Pignatelli were on a routine, anti-crime plainclothes patrol in an wunarked New Y rk Police Department ("NYPD") vehicle when they received a call of a "dispute" at Greene an Bedford Avenues in Brooklyn, New York (Danchak's EBT, 32-38). As the Police Officers proce ded to the area, driving southbound on Franklin A venue near Lafayette Avenue, Officer Danchak served people yelling and running (Id. at4 l-42) and Officer Deighan observed two crowds of peopl on both the northwest and southeast corners of Franklin and Lafayette Avenues engaged in aver al dispute (Deighan's EBT, 30). The NYPD vehicle pulled over to the curb close to the inters ction of Franklin and Lafayette Avenues. Thereafter, Police Officers Danchak, Deighan, Halleran d Pignatelli observed Plaintiff separate himself from a group of males located on the southeas side of Franklin and Lafayette Avenues and walk into said intersection holding an object in his right hand (Danchak's EBT, 53). He appeared to be saying something to the crowd and the rowd started running (Deighan's EBT, 34:12-16). Plaintiff crune to a stop in front of the NYPD ehicle, at which point he pulled up his right arm and fired the gun into the crowd (Danchak's BT, 62). By this time, Officer Danchak had exited the vehicle and drew his service weapon (Id. at 66), as did Officer Deighan who yelled "police" (Deighan's EBT, 37). Plaintiffthen allegedly 'rected his gun towards the Defendant Police Officers (Id). As a result, Defendant Police Officers di charged their weapons 2 Printed; 9/30/2015 [* 3] 42210f2003 Decision and order ....OT O. 9/16113 Peoe 3 of 1279 at Plaintiff. 1 As they were firing their weapons, Plaintiff proceeded to run d wn Franklin A venue with the gun still in his hand. Thereafter, Sergeant Danchak and Officer Pig atelli began pursuing Plaintiff on foot while Officers Halleran and Deighan pursued Plaintiff by ve icle. Officer Deighan testified that, while he was pursuing Plaintiff, he kept shouting "Police, do 't move" (Deighan's EBT, 45:2:6). When the NYPD vehicle caught up to Plaintiff, Officers Haller and Deighan again told Plaintiff to drop the gun, however, Plaintiff raised his gun toward th NYPD vehicle and Officers Halleran and Deighan again discharged their weapons at Plaintiff (Ii at 44-47; Halleran's EBT, 79-80). Soon thereafter, Plaintiff fell to the ground, still holding the gun, d Officer Pignatelli ran over and slid the gun away with his foot. An entirely different narrative is set forth by Plaintiff. According to Pl · ntiff, he and several of his friends were involved in a physical fight with a group of males (Pia tiff's EBT, 60-64). Plaintiff was engaged in two fights at different times. At some point during Pla ntiffs fight with the second male, the other male pulled out a black revolver (Id at 64: 15-16). Pl intiff struggled with the other male for the gun, which discharged once while both set of hands w re on the gun (Id at 71: 18-24). Immediately after the gun discharged, Plaintiff gained control of e gun and the other male ran away (Id at 72: 15-20). Plaintiff never came to know the identi of the other male. Afterwards, as Plaintiff was standing at the comer of Franklin and Lafayette enues, still holding the gun in his right hand, Plaintiff heard one shot fired, followed by rapid sh s in succession (Id at 7 4 :7-20). Plaintiff could not tell where the shots were coming from (Id at 7 5: 2-24). After hearing the first shot, Plaintiff started running southbound on Franklin A venue towar Clifton Place until his knee "gave out" (Id at 77-78). Plaintiff stopped running, at which point he heard a car come to a screeching halt in front ofhim (Id. at 84:7-10). Plaintiff observed that the car as a dark, four-door sedan with two Caucasian males sitting in the driver and passenger seats (Id. at 8 -86). Before seeing the car, Plaintiff had dropped the gun on the floor in order to check his knee (Ii at 88:4-14). As the vehicle stopped and pulled in front of Plaintiff, Plaintiff put his hands up i the "surrendering" position, inferring that the two male Caucasian individuals were police officer (Id at 87). Almost immediately, multiple shots were fired at him from the NYPD vehicle (Id at 89:5). Plaintiff thereafter fell to the ground and rolled around trying to avoid the bullets (Id at 9 : 16-19). When the shooting stopped, Plaintiff was lying on his stomach, face down, on the sidew k, feet toward the police car. 1 0fficer Pignatelli attempted to discharge his service weapon at Plaintiff but t malfunctioned. 3 PT1nted: 9/30J2015 [* 4] Page 4 of 1279 42210'2003 Decision end Ofder ..... OTO. 9116/13 It is Plaintiff's position that he never saw Defendant Police Office s when he entered the intersection; never fired a shot into the crowd or pointed the gun at any cro d; never attempted to fire at Defendant Police Officers; and never heard anyone identify themse ves to him as a police officer or yell "drop the gun" (Plaintiff's EBT Testimony, 80). Defendant Police Officers discharged their service weapons a to of 33 times, hitting Plaintiff in the wrist, hand, butt and foot. The City Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary jud~ent on Plaintiff's claim for excessive force on the basis of qualified immunity. Specifically, the CiJargues that Defendant Police Officers' use of deadly force against Plaintiff was objectively rer onable because they perceived the imminent use of deadly physical force by Plaintiff against them. Discussion "The Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of unreasonable and ther fore excessive force by a police officer in the course of effecting an arrest" (Tracy v Freshwater, 23 F3d 90, 96 [2d Cir 2010]). "[A]n officer's decision to use deadly force is objectively reasonabl only if ' the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat ofdeath o serious physical injury to the officer or others"' (Cowan v Breen, 352 F3d 756, 762 [2d Cir 2003]) For pwposes of either Fourth Amendment liability or qualified immunity, the objective reasonable ess inquiry for officers using deadly force "depends only upon the officer's knowledge of circums ces immediately prior to and at the moment that he made the split-second decision to employ <lea ly force"(Jd. ). Based on the City's account of events, where Plaintiff discharged the gun into the crowd and thereafter directed the gun at the police officers, the decision to shoot Plaint' would be objectively reasonable. However, there are issues of fact as to whether Plaintiff shot a r und into the crowd and whether he aimed his gun toward the officers. According to Plaintiff, after o taining the gun, he was standing at the comer of the intersection when, suddenly, shots started firi g rapidly around him. Plaintiff testified that he never saw a police officer before hearing shots fired and that nobody identified himself as a police officer or told him to drop his weapon. In ad ition, Plaintiff testified that the two police officers pursuing him in the NYPD vehicle fired at him ter he had dropped his gun and assumed the "surrendering" position. Thus, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it cannot be said, as a matter oflaw, that the Defendant Police Offi ers' use of deadly force against Plaintiff was objectively reasonable (see Taylor v Nassau County 2012 US Dist LEXIS 4 Printed: 9/30/2015 [* 5] 4221012003 Decision end order ...OTO. 9/1 8/13 • • r Page 5 of 1279 'It 159106, 11-CV-0934(SJF)(GRB), *23-24 [2012]; CarvajalvMihalek,2009lJSDistLEXIS 115279 , 07 Civ. 0170 (PAC), *15-16 [2009]; Get/in v Zoll, 707 F Supp 2d 369, 37 J (2010]). Having determined that, assuming the truth of Plaintiffs allegatio s, a jury could find in Plaintiffs favor on the question of excessive force, the Court turns to th issue of whether the Defendant Police Offices are entitled to qualified immunity. " The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers acting in their official capacity from suits for damage under 42 USC §1983, unless their actions violate clearly-established rights of which an objectiv ly reasonable official would have known" (Thomas v Roach, 165 F3d 137, 142 [2d Cir 1999])." ummary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not appropriate when there are facts in dispu e that are material to a determination ofreasonableness" (Id. at 143). As set forth above, given the shf1>1Y disputed versions of events, summary judgment based on the ground of qualified immunity rlnust be DENIED (see Get/in v Zoll, supra; Seguinot v Dzenan, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 45133, cl:IO-CV-1387, *22-23 [NDNY 2013]). This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. &S :L WV 02 5 d3~ ~B31~ AlHOOJ S8Hl'>I 0311.:i Printed: 9/30'2015

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.