You are here: / / CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING...
, , ,

CITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM THE POLICE-KILLING OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD BOY AFTER HIS MOTHER CALLED 911 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the City defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this negligence, wrongful death and civil-rights-violation action should not have been granted. Plaintiffs’ decedent, 18 years old, was shot and killed by police after his mother called 911. The Second Department noted that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on the cause of action based upon defendants’ alleged failure to follow the Patrol Guide for the apprehension of barricaded and emotionally disturbed persons because the relevant actions were discretionary and thus entitled to governmental immunity:

… [A] municipal defendant cannot be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee police officers where it establishes that the alleged negligent acts involved the exercise of discretionary authority … . Discretionary acts “involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” … . …

… [T]he defendants submitted the deposition testimony of each of the defendant officers who fired at the decedent, as well as the deposition testimony of a nonparty civilian who observed the incident. … [T]he testimonies of these witnesses demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether … the decedent posed a threat of imminent death or serious physical injury to the defendant officers or others sufficient to justify the officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent … . …  [T]he City may not rely on the defense of governmental immunity because the defendant officers’ actions, if negligent, would be in violation of the Patrol Guide’s prohibition against the use of deadly physical force, and therefore, not discretionary … . …

… [Re: 42 USC 1983] the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant officers’ use of deadly physical force against the decedent was objectively reasonable under the circumstances … . The defendants further failed to establish, prima facie, the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonable officer, facing the same situation, could have believed that deadly physical force was necessary to protect himself or herself or others from death or serious physical injury, and that the defendant officers are thus entitled to qualified immunity … . Owens v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03019, Second Dept 5-27-20

 

You might also like
PETITION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY, WITHOUT PROOF, CONTENDED THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REPLACED, APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
School District Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of Student’s Potential to Harm Other Students
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION HAD TERMINATED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO RENDER THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE,... GOVERNOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR QUEENS BOROUGH...