New York Injury Lawyers Blog

A downtown New York lawyer is suing the city of New York and the NYPD for $400,000 in damages after two officers mistakenly thought that he was attempting suicide. Mark Moody was smoking a cigarette on the ledge of his second story Peck Slip apartment when two officers stopped their car and asked Moody if he was going to jump. Although Moody explained that smoking on his ledge was his normal routine, the officers allegedly entered the apartment, subdued Moody, and sent him via ambulance to Beth Israel Medical Center. His alleged injuries are currently unknown. Moody was examined and released by the psychiatrist on call.

Paul Browne, spokesman for the NYPD, said, "Police responded to a 911 call of an emotionally disturbed person at the location. When police arrived, they observed the male sitting on the ledge talking erratically. Police Emergency Service officers were called, and the person was removed to the hospital for observation."

"I wasn't doing anything," Moody said. "Maybe it should be a crime to smoke a cigarette, but at the moment it's not."

The basis for Moody's lawsuit is likely the use of excessive force by the NYPD and/or a violation of his civil rights.

Website Resource:

Cops take 'suicidal' window ledge smoker to psych ward

New York Post, Kathianne Boniello, December 19, 2010

New York residents/claimants, Wayne K. Rusho (driver) and Julie L. Rusho (passenger), were injured in an car accident when their vehicle was struck by a state owned, unmarked police car that made a U turn into oncoming traffic. A parole officer was driving the state owned vehicle at the time of the accident. He thought he saw a parole absconder driving in the other direction.

Claimants brought a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and the State cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The Court of Claims judge denied claimants' motion and granted the States cross-motion, dismissing the claim based upon V&T Law §1104. The Appellate Division reversed holding that the parole officer was not engaged in an "emergency operation" and the recklessness standard of §1104 did not apply. The parole officer admitted that if he was correct about seeing the parole absconder, he would have called the police for assistance (and not arrested the absconder himself). Accordingly, the Fourth Department found that the parole office was still in the investigatory phase and their pursuit was not an emergency.

The Court further found that the parole officer's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries. Claimants' motion for summary judgment on liability was granted. Judge Carni dissented. In his view, the above facts indicated an emergency situation and that the parole officer's actions were not reckless.

Resource:

Rusho v State of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 06449 (4th Dept. 2010).