Russo v. Cnty. of Warren

3 Citing cases

  1. Mazyck v. Doe

    6:20-CV-06055 EAW (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2024)

    (acknowledging that the loss of a front tooth might be enough for pre-trial detainee to sustain a § 1983 claim against a corrections officer under the Fourteenth Amendment); Russo v. Cnty. of Warren, No. 1:12-CV-01616 FJS/CFH, 2015 WL 7738043, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (“[I]n this case, Plaintiff has produced evidence of bruises and lacerations to her wrists and the side of her torso, as well as a chipped tooth. This is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.”)

  2. Livingston v. Hoffnagle

    9:19-CV-0353 (GLS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    “With respect to an allegation of overly-tight handcuffs, a [c]ourt is to consider evidence that: 1) the handcuffs were unreasonably tight; 2) the defendants ignored [plaintiff's] pleas that the handcuffs were too tight; and 3) the degree of injury to the wrists.” Russo v. County of Warren, No. 1:12-CV-1616 (FJS/CFH), 2015 WL 7738043, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (citing Finley v. Perry, No. 9:06-CV-1524 (FJS/ATB), 2010 WL 6427496, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 1302248 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011)).

  3. Frederique v. Cnty. of Nassau

    168 F. Supp. 3d 455 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 63 times
    Finding that an intentional act cannot support a negligence claim

    First, insofar as Plaintiffs' IIED claim is asserted on behalf of Stanley and Luckelson, it fails as a matter of law because it overlaps with traditional tort theories of liability, including their surviving claim for excessive force. See Russo v. County of Warren , No. 12–CV–1616, 2015 WL 7738043, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (“Plaintiff may not properly bring her IIED claims in addition to her excessive force and assault and battery claims.”).