Author: Michael Lumer

LLG Obtains $550k Following Verdict

We have just obtained a trial verdict for our client, WK, against the City of New York and detectives Hugo Ortega, Ylka Morales, and an undercover officer known as UC 217, for injuring and then framing WK for a drug sale he had no involvement in and an attempted robbery that never happened. As reported in the Daily News, the verdict, returned August 23, 2022, is for $191,001, with our legal fees and costs to be determined later. We have since reached a settlement in which the City agreed to pay WK $200,000 in damages and to pay our legal fees and costs in the amount of $350,000.

In April 2015 UC 217 was attempting to purchase crack cocaine in Brooklyn, New York as part of a buy-and-bust operation. He gave $60 to a woman and went with her to an apartment building. Watching from outside the front door, he claimed he saw her go into the lobby, walk directly up to WK, give WK the buy money, receive back an object that he later learned was crack, and then exit the building. According to UC 217, the woman never left his sight. He also claimed that WK and others followed her out of the building and forced UC 217 into a stairwell where they kept him for over a minute while threatening to shoot and rob him. Luckily, he claimed, he was able to escape unharmed. UC 217 swore to this that night in a written statement, and then repeated his claims to prosecutors and a grand jury.

Ortega and Morales, having been told about the drug sale by UC 217, entered the lobby minutes later to arrest WK. Ortega punched WK in the stomach and threw him to the ground where, moments later while WK was lying face down, Morales kicked him twice in the face. WK required stitches to close the wound above his eyebrow.

WK was jailed for over 9 days before making bail and was prosecuted on various felony charges for nearly 20 months, during which he was offered plea deals that would have required him to spend many years in a state prison. It was only when his criminal counsel finally received surveillance video from the building that WK could establish his innocence. The video showed that the woman actually entered and walked through the lobby and then exited through a back door into another part of the building, where she remained for well over a minute. When she returned, she again walked through the lobby and then out the front door. At no time did she exchange anything with anyone in the lobby. The video also demonstrated that WK was in an elevator almost the entire time the woman was in the building. More importantly, there simply was no attempted robbery. Prosecutors dismissed the case promptly after receiving the surveillance footage.

The civil jury found that both Ortega and Morales used excessive force, and that Morales and UC 217 both caused WK to be maliciously prosecuted. WK was awarded compensatory damages for his injuries and all three officers were found liable for punitive damages. The defendants are now challenging $7,901 of the $191,001 awarded. They are not challenging the balance of the verdict. Once this motion practice is resolved, the amount of legal fees and costs also owed by the defendants will be addressed and resolved, either by agreement or, that is not possible, by the court.

What is not clear is why the City of New York insisted on trying this case in the first place. The video evidence was compelling, and the fact that the Law Department chose not to challenge the verdict (beyond the $7,901 awarded against Ortega) confirms that the defendants recognize this to be so. Knowing that, it is difficult to understand why the defendants insisted on a trial. The City lawyers’ refusal to acknowledge or address what is plainly deliberate misconduct underscores why this misconduct happens over and over again. The City’s message is that it considers brutality and perjury to be acceptable policing tools, and officers need not worry about that they will be held accountable.

$250k Settlement for Diabetic Client in NYPD Custody

Our client, a longtime diabetic in his mid-20s, was arrested for shoplifting and brought to Central Booking. Though he told officers he needed his insulin, no medication or medical care was provided, and as a result, our client slipped into diabetic ketoacidosis and was rushed to the hospital. He remained there for a week while shackled to the bed before being released to NYPD custody. Before they could return him to the courthouse, our client again began suffering from DKA and had to be brought back to the hospital. While the NYPD is certainly not responsible for our client’s diabetes, the officers involved ignored his requests for his medication, causing him to suffer needlessly. Working with our co-counsel, we were able to reach a $250,000 settlement well before completing discovery.

$150k Settlement for LLG Client for Malicious Prosecution

We are pleased to announce that our client, EL, has recently settled his claims of malicious prosecution and denial of a fair trial against members of the NYPD for $150,000. EL was driving a rental car when he was stopped by officers in the Bronx, who–acting on a tip from an informant–asked to search EL’s trunk. EL, who believed he had nothing to hide, readily consented. The officers then stated they found a handgun in the trunk. EL, who always denied any knowledge or connection to the gun, was acquitted at trial and then hired LLG to sue for compensation. The case ended with a settlement in the amount of $150,000.

Important SCOTUS civil rights ruling

The Supreme Court has ruled that a malicious prosecution claim can be maintained without showing the prosecution ended “favorably.” This is an important ruling.

In addition, requiring the plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose a §1983 claim when the government’s case was weaker and dismissed without explanation before trial, but allow a claim when the government’s evidence was substantial enough to proceed to trial. That would make little sense.

Thompson, at 11.

The Supreme Court, Thompson v. Clark, ruled today that a plaintiff can pursue a malicious prosecution claim without showing the prosecution ended “favorably.” All she needs to show is that ended without a conviction. This is an important ruling.

A person who was wrongly prosecuted may have a cause of action for malicious prosecution under federal law (42 USC §1983) if they can show that a police officer (i) caused her to be prosecuted, (ii) without probable cause, (iii) and did so with malice. The plaintiff also used to have to show that the criminal case ended “favorably.”

Thompson concerned this last criterion. The sole question there is whether the plaintiff need demonstrate anything other than the prosecution ended without a conviction. In New York federal courts, a plaintiff was required to show that the dismissal of his case iwas indicative of his innocence. This is no easy task and created logical and legal inconsistencies. As the Court in Thompson notes,

The bottom line here is that this element, known as the “favorable termination requirement,” created an additional obstacle that plaintiffs often could not satisfy for reasons that were beyond their control. Law enforcement defendants still have plenty of arrows in their quiver, but this ruling properly removes one line of defense that was fundamentally unfair and unjust.

Jury Award for Excessive Force Upheld by U.S. Court of Appeals

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld a jury award of $445,000 for a man who was brutalized by three members of the NYPD. It is an important decision for several reasons, not the least of which was the Court’s recognition that deliberate attempts by officers to cover up and hide their misconduct can be taken into account by jurors in determining how much they should award in punitive damages.

Andrew Yurkiw, Amber Lagrandier, and Joseph Solomito assaulted our client, Thomas Jennings, breaking his nose in multiple places. The case was first tried in Brooklyn federal court in June 2018. That jury, outraged by these officers’ conduct and their attempt to lie their way past the trial, awarded plaintiff $500,000 in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages. The Court ruled that those amounts were too high and gave plaintiff the option of accepting $255,000 as a final number (of which $140,000 was for punitive damages) or having a second jury decide how much he should receive.

We elected to retry the case and proceeded to trial in April 2019. This time the jury awarded a total amount of $445,000, including $355,000 in punitive damages. This time the court left the award alone. The three officers appealed, arguing that the Court should have again reduced the punitive damages to $140,000. The defendants argued their brutality was nothing but “a few minutes of violence” against Jennings. The appellate court rejected that argument, finding that “’a few minutes of violence’ is not a trivial matter.” The Court also pointed out that the defendants’ “excessive force was made the more reprehensible because none of the officers intervened to stop the attack, as each was required to do” and that “[t]he reprehensible nature of the officers’ conduct is underscored by the elaborate steps they took to cover up their misconduct. The jury heard and was entitled to consider a record that included falsified charging documents, false accounts of the beating, faked or exaggerated injury, and perjured trial testimony.”

Jennings was represented throughout the case by Amy Rameau. Michael Lumer tried both cases with Ms. Rameau and participated on the appeal with appellate counsel Scott Korenbaum.