News & Updates

Police Assault on Video

On June 1, 2018, our client was awarded $3,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages with respect to the NYPD’s use of excessive force against him on April 23, 2014. See here and here. Unfortunately, this was not the last time Thomas Jennings would be assaulted without justification by police officers.

On July 7, 2015, Thomas Jennings walked into a bodega. He walked in and and began a conversation with an employee behind the counter. Moments later, NYPD PO Lenny Lutchman walks in, his retractable baton in hand. He ordered our client to the ground. Mr. Jennings, his arms outstretched and palms empty, asked repeatedly what it was that he had done. Seconds later, PO Pearce Martinez rushed in and immediately begins punching Mr. Jennings in the head. Lutchman jumps in, driving the butt end of his baton into Jennings’ body several times. A bloodied and beaten Thomas Jennings is then escorted from the store.

Luckily for Mr. Jennings, and much to the officers’ later surprise, this act of police brutality was captured on video.

The officers, unaware of the video, went back to the station house and completed arrest paperwork in which they stated that no force was used in making the arrest. Thomas Jennings’ injuries, Martinez wrote in his memo book, must have come about accidentally.

As for the arrest itself, it was based on a claim that Mr. Jennings and another man had robbed a local takeout restaurant at knifepoint earlier that afternoon. However, there was video of that supposed “crime” as well. That video, which was, in fact, several videos taken from different cameras, made clear that there was no robbery, no knife, no violence, no threats of violence, and no crime committed by Thomas Jennings. All of the criminal charges against him were dismissed shortly thereafter.

Mr. Jennings’ civil lawsuit against the officers is continuing.

$3 Million Excessive Force Verdict

On April 23, 2014, Thomas Jennings was brutalized and subjected to excessive force by several members of the NYPD. He subsequently sued. On June 1, 2018, following a three-day trial and five hours of deliberation, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York returned a verdict for Mr. Jennings for $3,000,000, finding that that three NYPD officers had deliberately used excessive force against him. Michael Lumer was c0-counsel for Mr. Jennings at trial, along with his long-time attorney Amy Rameau, Esq.  The jury found that PO Andrew Yurkiw had, without justification, struck plaintiff in the face several times, and that his colleagues, POs Amber Lagrandier and Joseph Solomito had also beaten and struck plaintiff after Yurkiw’s blows had knocked Mr. Jennings to the ground. Plaintiff suffered a bi-lateral nasal fracture with a displaced septum, and other injuries to his face, head, and body.  The verdict was reported recently in the Daily News.

In reaching this verdict, the jury expressly rejected the officers’ testimony that plaintiff had swung at Yurkiw, attempted to flee, or resist arrest. Rather, the jury found that the officers lied repeatedly and collectively about how and why they used force against Thomas Jennings, and went so far as to deny that he was actually hurt, even though his medical records fully documented his injuries. In response, the jury awarded Mr. Jennings $500,000 in compensatory damages, and assessed punitive damages against Yurkiw, Lagrandier, and Solomito, for $1,000,000, $750,000, and $750,000, respectively.

We are grateful that the jury recognized the officers’ initial misconduct, and that these officers had lied and covered up their actions by falsifying claims against Mr. Jennings. Perhaps more importantly, the jury made that the officers’ refusal to admit to their misconduct and their years of lying and fabricating were unacceptable. It is hopefully a message that will be heard at One Police Plaza.

LLG Fee Award Adopted

We are pleased to announce that, on April 30, 2018, a district court in the Eastern District of New York adopted a report and recommendation that the Lumer Law Group receive more than $209,000 in legal fees and costs in the midst of an ongoing case (Thomas v. City of New York, 14 CV 7513(ENV) (VMS)). The figure includes an hourly rate of $450 for Michael Lumer, which is at the uppermost end of rates awarded in this district.

The underlying action concerns the NYPD’s arrest of 25 people in May 2014 in two apartments in a multi-family home in Brooklyn. Within a week of the arrest, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office had either declined to prosecute or dismissed all charges against everyone arrested at the premises. Michael Lumer filed suit in late 2014 on behalf of 15 of these people, and three more who were arrested outside in a common driveway that runs behind the house. Six of these people were charged with gambling. However, as the defendants eventually had to admit, they had no idea whether any of these six people (or anyone at all) were gambling. Moreover, the defendants also had to concede that the conduct in question — playing poker inside someone’s apartment — was not illegal. Having forced the plaintiff’s to fight this matter all the way into February 2017, the defendants offered to not only pay fixed amounts to each of these six plaintiffs, they also offered to pay Mr. Lumer and his firm their legal fees for the work performed to date.

On December 1, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that called for the firm to receive payment for 100% of the work performed. Mr. Lumer’s hourly rate was fixed at $450, which is consistent with the highest rates allowable in the EDNY. The defendants did not object in any way to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Not suprisingly, on April 30, the district court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit on behalf of the remaining 12 plaintiffs continues.

LLG Obtains $240k False Arrest Settlement

In early December 2017 we were able to help bring about a favorable settlement for five young men who were wrongly arrested and jailed for a day by the NYPD. In April 2014 dozens of people convened in the Bronx to pay their respects at a memorial service. As the attendees dispersed, members of the NYPD arrested a man for possession of a handgun and narcotics. For reasons the officers could never properly articulate, they also arrested five other young men, whose only crime was being on the same street as the first man. The five men were arrested and left sitting on the sidewalk on handcuffs in their home neighborhood for some 30 minutes. Eventually they were brought to a local police station, and then Central Booking. The Bronx District Attorney interviewed the arresting officer and immediately concluded that there was no basis for these arrests. All five were then released.

The men brought suit. In December 2017, on the eve of trial, the City of New York, on behalf of the defendant officers (Edwin Espinal, Ryan Gillis, Eric Healy, and Jeremy Scheublin) agreed to pay $240,000 to settle the matter. We are happy to have played a part in bringing about a measure of justice for these men, who should never have been arrested.

Prison Assault Settlement

We are happy to announce that LLG was able to secure a $187,500 settlement for a client who was violently assaulted while in the custody of the City of New York’s Department of Corrections at its Metropolitan Detention Center in lower Manhattan. Our client, who we represented along with Amy Rameau, Esq., had complained to DOC guards that another inmate was threatening him. Nothing was done and shortly thereafter, the other inmate struck our client from behind, and then viciously beat him. The case was filed and litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was formally dismissed by the court following the settlement on December 4, 2017.

Inmate-on-inmate assaults are difficult cases to successfully pursue. A plaintiff has to demonstrate not only that he or she was the victim of an attack (and not participants in a fight), but that the DOC had advance notice that the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable, and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the inmate. Here, we were able to establish that the guards saw and heard the initial threats by the attacker, and made no effort to separate plaintiff and the other inmate. We are proud of this result and the work that we performed that helped bring about the settlement.