![icad nypd icad nypd](https://c8.alamy.com/compes/2e5k05y/preet-bharara-u-s-attorney-for-the-southern-district-of-new-york-speaks-during-a-news-conference-to-announce-the-charges-of-insider-trading-against-a-former-hedge-fund-portfolio-manager-mathew-martoma-in-new-york-november-20-2012-martoma-who-worked-for-cr-intrinsic-investors-in-stamford-a-unit-of-sac-capital-has-been-accused-of-making-more-than-276-million-in-illicit-profits-based-on-tips-about-elan-corp-and-wyeth-llc-which-was-bought-by-pfizer-in-late-2009-reuters-keith-bedford-united-states-tags-crime-law-business-2e5k05y.jpg)
The officers observed that plaintiff was only wearing a tee-shirt, naked from the waist down and shoeless, and was pale and sweating (Tr 295-296 & 873). Plaintiff was leaning over the third-floor railing and said to Sergeant O’Keefe and Officer Irwin that the person they were looking for was upstairs or she may have said you must be here for the crazy lady (Tr 294-294 & 870-871). Sergeant O’Keefe and Officer Irwin first saw plaintiff as they were ascending the steps from either the first to second floor or the second to third floor. Before entering the building, Sergeant O’Keefe drew her taser (Tr 184-187) and when she and Officer Irwin entered the building in addition to the screaming from an upper floor they heard banging (Tr 396).
![icad nypd icad nypd](https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image/0a384d5a1a8bbd718634903069d4f1a2/image-10.jpg)
When Sergeant O’Keefe and Officer Irwin arrived at 33 West 69th Street, they heard screaming and someone from a second-floor window indicated they should come into the building. According to Sergeant O’Keefe, she and Officer Irwin never received that correction notwithstanding it appearing on NYPD’s ICAD printout, a report of incoming calls to 911(Trial transcript 166-173, Ex B).
![icad nypd icad nypd](https://www.coursehero.com/thumb/54/82/54824bbe915fd9f9af17fb5e26b24769e8f4b3a0_180.jpg)
The 911 dispatcher issued a correction two minutes later that said her neighbor was trying to kick down her own door. from a woman at 33 West 69th Street, who said that her neighbor was trying to kick down her door.
#Icad nypd trial#
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE AT TRIAL Sergeant O’Keefe and Officer Irwin’s testimony Sergeant O’Keefe and Officer Irwin responded to a 911 call on April 11, 2014, at about 3:22 a.m. The jury awarded plaintiff $300,000 for pain and suffering to the date of the verdict, $100,000 for future pain and suffering for a period of 10 years, and $500,000 in punitive damages as against Sergeant O’Keefe.
#Icad nypd free#
After a three-week trial, the jury found, inter alia, that New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) officers used excessive force on plaintiff on April 12, 2014, and that the excessive force used by NYPD officers was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries that Sergeant O’Keefe used excessive force on plaintiff on April 12, 2014, and that the excessive force she used was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injuries that the City had a policy of deliberate indifference with respect to the training and supervision of its police officers’ interactions with emotionally disturbed persons, and that the City’s policy of deliberate indifference led directly to the deprivation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force on April 12, 2014. Plaintiff opposes arguing that there was enough evidence to support the jury’s determinations on liability and damages. Finally, if the jury’s verdict as to defendants’ liability is not set aside, defendants move to set aside the jury’s award for damages unless plaintiff accepts a reduced award because the jury’s damages award deviates materially from other damages awarded in similar cases. Defendants also move to set aside the jury’s verdict as to Sergeant O’Keefe and the City of New York claiming they were denied a fair trial. Defendants further move to set aside the jury’s verdict and grant judgment in favor of Sergeant O’Keefe claiming she is entitled to qualified immunity.
![icad nypd icad nypd](https://nycopendata.socrata.com/api/assets/3FF54443-CD9C-4E56-8A20-8D2BD245BD1A?nyclogo300.png)
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 were read on this motion to/for SET ASIDE VERDICT DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing documents, it is decided as follows: In this excessive force, Monell claim case, defendants (also referred to as the “City”) move to set aside the jury’s verdict pursuant to CPLR §4404(a) and grant judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that 1) the amount of force used by the officers against plaintiff on April 12, 2014, was reasonable as a matter of law, 2) there is insufficient evidence to support plaintiff’s Monell claim as a matter of law and 3) plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between the use of force and the alleged unconstitutional policy or in the alternative, if judgment is not granted in defendants favor, granting a new trial on these grounds as the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.