From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conrad v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 16, 2021
192 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

13363 Index No. 154550/17 Case No. 2020-02314

03-16-2021

Eric CONRAD, as Administrator of the Estate of Garry J. Conrad, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents, NYPD Police Officers Adolfo Peralta and Kevin Gleason, Defendants.

Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York ( Karen Dippold of counsel), for appellant. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York ( Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.


Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New York ( Karen Dippold of counsel), for appellant.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York ( Zachary S. Shapiro of counsel), for respondents.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Mendez, Shulman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurence L. Love, J.), entered March 3, 2020, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants made out a prima facie case that Officer Gleason's actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances, which required split-second decision making ( Pacheco v. City of New York, 104 A.D.3d 548, 549, 961 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Elias v. City of New York, 173 A.D.3d 538, 102 N.Y.S.3d 192 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The record raises disputed issues of fact as to whether Officer Gleason knew or should have known that plaintiff's decedent, Garry Conrad, was an emotionally disturbed person at the time of their interaction. However, even using the Patrol Guide guidelines applicable to interactions with emotionally disturbed persons to inform the standard of care ( see Lubecki v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 224, 233–234, 758 N.Y.S.2d 610 [1st Dept. 2003], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 701, 778 N.Y.S.2d 459, 810 N.E.2d 912 [2004] ), under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Gleason was entitled to qualified immunity because his actions in attempting to arrest Conrad were matters of discretion and professional judgment that did not violate any clearly established procedures or protocol ( see Davila v. City of New York, 139 A.D.3d 890, 892–893, 33 N.Y.S.3d 306 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 914, 2017 WL 580238 [2017] ; Pacheco, 104 A.D.3d at 549, 961 N.Y.S.2d 408 ).

Plaintiff no longer contends that two other officers violated protocols in using deadly force after Conrad pulled out a knife, and any claim that Officer Gleason's use of force in connection with the attempted arrest proximately caused Conrad's death is highly attenuated, given the intervening conduct ( see County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1539, 1547, 198 L.Ed.2d 52 [2017] ; Ferreira v. City of Binghamton, 975 F.3d 255, 279 [2d Cir.2020] ; see generally Lee v. New York City Hous. Auth., 25 A.D.3d 214, 220, 803 N.Y.S.2d 538 [1st Dept. 2005] )

As for the assault and battery claims, Officer Gleason had probable cause to arrest Conrad, for, among other things, aggravated harassment, and because plaintiff does not allege and the record does not show that Conrad sustained injuries as a result of Gleason's attempted arrest, those claims were properly dismissed ( see Price v. City of New York, 172 A.D.3d 625, 628–629, 103 N.Y.S.3d 31 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Davidson v. City of New York, 155 A.D.3d 544, 544, 65 N.Y.S.3d 520 [1st Dept. 2017] ).


Summaries of

Conrad v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 16, 2021
192 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Conrad v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Eric CONRAD, as Administrator of the Estate of Garry J. Conrad…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 16, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
192 A.D.3d 505