You are here: / / Question of Fact Raised Whether Police Officers Used Excessive Force In...
,

Question of Fact Raised Whether Police Officers Used Excessive Force In Violation of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights—Criteria Explained

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether police officers used excessive force in violation of plaintiff’s civil rights.  The court explained the relevant law:

“A claim that a law enforcement official used excessive force during the course of an arrest . . . is to be analyzed under the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment” … . The reasonableness of a particular use of force is judged from “the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight” …, and takes into account “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he [or she] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight” … . “[A]n officer’s decision to use deadly force is objectively reasonable only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others” … . “Because of its intensely factual nature, the question of whether the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances is generally best left for a jury to decide” … . “If found to be objectively reasonable, the officer’s actions are privileged under the doctrine of qualified immunity” … . Williams v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05470, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT “APPEARED INFORMALLY” THROUGH THE CEO’S AFFIDAVIT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.
PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED; IN MOVING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DELAY IN SEEKING TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS EVER EXISTED HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO STRIKE THE ANSWER FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER PRECLUDING THE DEFENDANTS FROM INTRODUCING ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Lost Profits Sufficiently Proven in Breach of Contract Action—Criteria... The Totality of Circumstances Provided the Police Officer with Reasonable Suspicion...