You are here: / / 42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK...
, ,

42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint by adding named police officers (previously listed in the complaint as John or Jane Doe) as defendants was properly denied. The statute of limitations for civil rights violation under 18 USC 1983 had passed. The plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued the relation-back doctrine applied because there was a unity of interest between the city defendant and the named police officers:

Plaintiffs argue that Officers Crocitto and Palmerini are united in interest with the City of New York, one of the original defendants, because the officers are employees of the City. It is undisputed, however, that the City cannot be held vicariously liable for its employees’ violations of 42 USC § 1983. Rather, the City can be held liable under 42 USC § 1983 only for violating that statute through an unconstitutional official policy or custom … . Thus, it simply cannot be said that the fortunes in this action of the City and of either Officer Crocitto or Officer Palmerini “stand or fall together and that judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Because the City has no vicarious liability for Officers Crocitto’s and Palmerini’s alleged misconduct under 42 USC § 1983, the two officers are not united in interest with the City with respect to the federal false arrest and excessive force claims against them, and the interposition of those claims against the officers does not relate back to the commencement of the action against the City for purposes of the statute of limitations. Higgins v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07748, 1st Dept 11-17-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/CIVIL RIGHTS (18 USC 1983) (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)/POLICE OFFICERS (1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
EVIDENCE INCLUDED IN A SETTLEMENT LETTER PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL, MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION RE A WITNESS LIVING IN FLORIDA WAS ERROR, EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH RELIED IN PART ON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL MOVED TO SUPPRESS AN UNNOTICED EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AFTER BEING TOLD THE IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE PRECLUDED IF HE DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL INTRODUCED DEFENDANT’S MUG SHOT DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PHOTO ID; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO A DETECTIVE’S IMPROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN A BLURRY VIDEO; THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS REQUIRING A SHUTDOWN AND REOPENING RESTRICTIONS DID NOT TERMINATE PLAINTIFF RETAIL STORE’S LEASE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE DOCTRINES OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE AND IMPOSSIBILITY DO NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
Court Must Make a Youthful Offender Determination Even When Defendant Waives It
Criteria for Judicial Review of Agency’s Action Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Explained
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL.
JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WERE ADEQUATE, ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHERE A PARTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE FAMILY COURT ACT TIME-LIMIT FOR... INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED,...