James Benbow V Police Officer Brian Feeley Police Officer Matthew

Key Facts

Issues

• Plaintiff moved to preclude the surveillance video taken shortly before the shooting. The Court denied this motion, ruling the video will be admitted subject to foundational requirements, noting the prior summary judgment finding it inconclusive did not make it categorically irrelevant.
• Defendants objected to inquiries into officers' disciplinary histories and civil rights actions. The Court granted the motion in part and denied in part: evidence against non-defendant officers for impeachment purposes is permitted under Rules 608(b) and 609; evidence against defendant officers for purposes other than impeachment requires demonstration of permissible purpose under Rule 404(b) and was reserved for further ruling.
• Defendants sought to preclude plaintiff from introducing investigative documents including Civilian Complaint Review Board and NYPD Use of Force Review Board reports. The Court excluded these reports as hearsay and under Rules 401 and 403 because they would supplant the jury's role as finder of fact. However, plaintiff may introduce statements defendants themselves made to investigators as party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2).
• Defendants moved to exclude plaintiff's proposed Exhibit 3 from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The Court denied the motion, ruling such records generally admissible as records of a regularly conducted activity under Rule 803(6), though defendants may levy specific hearsay and prejudice objections and documents must be disaggregated if compiled as a single exhibit.
• Defendants moved to preclude plaintiff from mentioning the City of New York, referring to defense counsel as City Attorneys, or suggesting the City may indemnify defendants. The Court granted this motion, excluding such references as irrelevant and prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 403, noting the City is no longer a defendant and such references could prejudice the jury's assessment of liability or damages.
• Defendants moved to preclude plaintiff from calling Sgt. Winston, Det. Lamoglia, Det. Bustamente, and Det. Testa due to failure to properly disclose them during discovery. Plaintiff argued he disclosed his intention to call NYPD members who investigated claims related to the parties. The Court ruled plaintiff may call these witnesses only if he demonstrates he disclosed their names as required or made a showing to excuse this requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
• Defendants moved to admit portions of plaintiff's criminal history under Rule 609 for impeachment purposes. The Court reserved judgment on this motion given uncertainty regarding whether plaintiff will testify, and neither party may mention this evidence in opening statements absent a further ruling.

Holdings

Remedies

• The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to preclude Jason Marshall from testifying. Since Defendants indicated they do not intend to call Marshall at trial, that question is moot. Events at Amarachi Prime that were conveyed to officers Feeley and Rosiello are likely admissible as relevant to defendants' state of mind under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c)(2). Events never conveyed to defendants are presumably irrelevant and will not be admitted absent further ruling.
• The court denied Plaintiff's motion to preclude the surveillance video taken shortly before the shooting. The video will be admitted subject to Defendants satisfying applicable foundational requirements. The fact that footage slightly predates the shooting does not render it categorically irrelevant, and the prior summary judgment conclusion that the video was inconclusive only supported the determination that genuine questions for the jury persisted.
• The court granted the motion to preclude any reference to potential indemnification or to defense counsel as city attorneys. Such references are excluded as both irrelevant and prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. Since the City of New York is no longer a defendant, referring to defense counsel as city attorneys would only serve to prejudice the jury by suggesting defendants may be indemnified.
• The motion to preclude officers' disciplinary history, prior lawsuits, and personnel files is granted in part and denied in part. Evidence may be permitted to the extent plaintiff wishes to introduce it against a testifying non-defendant officer for impeachment purposes under Rule 608(b) or Rule 609. However, for defendant officers, plaintiff must demonstrate a permissible purpose beyond propensity, and the court reserved judgment pending further identification of specific incidents and basis for admission.
• The court excluded investigative documents including reports from the Civilian Complaint Review Board and NYPD Use of Force Review Board. Conclusions reached by investigative bodies constitute hearsay and are likely inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 because they would supplant the jury's role as finder of fact. The introduction of these records would risk suggesting jurors should defer to an investigator's findings of fact, causing needless confusion.
• The court denied the motion to exclude Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibit 3. Records from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner will generally be admitted as records of a regularly conducted activity under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), subject to foundational requirements. Defendants may levy more specific hearsay and prejudice objections, and documents must be disaggregated and marked individually if compiled as a single exhibit.

Legal Principles

Precedent Name

• Est. of Jaquez v. Flores
• Fleming v. Verizon New York, Inc.
• Edwards v. City of New York
• O'Bert ex rel. Est. of O'Bert v. Vargo

Cited Statute

• Federal Rules of Evidence governing relevance, prejudice, character evidence, admissions, and business records
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery disclosure requirements and sanctions for failure to comply

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The motion is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent plaintiff wishes to introduce this evidence against a testifying, non-defendant officer to impeach his or her 'character for truthfulness or untruthfulness,' it will be permitted to the extent the evidence comports with Rule 608(b) (or, to the extent relevant, Rule 609). To the extent plaintiff wishes to introduce this evidence against the defendant officers affirmatively – that is, other than for impeachment purposes – he must demonstrate that he is offering it for some permissible purpose, and not simply to demonstrate propensity. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Because plaintiff has not identified which specific incidents he would like to introduce or the basis for which they would be admitted under Rule 404(b), the Court reserves judgment on this question.
• motion is granted. Any reference to potential indemnification or to defense counsel as city attorneys is excluded as both irrelevant and prejudicial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 & 403. 'Indemnification is not relevant to any issue before the jury,' Edwards v. City of New York, 8-cv-2199, 2011 WL 2748665, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2011), and the suggestion that defendants will be indemnified 'may prejudice the jury's assessment of liability or damages,' Est. of Jaquez v. Flores, 10-cv-2881, 2016 WL 1060841, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2016). Since the City of New York is no longer a defendant in this action, any reference to defense counsel as city attorneys can only serve to prejudice the jury by suggesting defendants may be indemnified.
• Nonetheless, Defendants are generally correct that any conclusions reached by investigative bodies would constitute hearsay. See ECF No. 150-1, at 19-20. They are also likely to be inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 because they would supplant the jury's role. The jury is the finder of fact in this case, so an investigator's findings are generally irrelevant. And the introduction of these records would risk the suggestion that jurors should defer to an investigator's findings of fact, causing needless confusion. Accordingly, absent a further ruling, this evidence will be excluded.