Opinion
2011-10-25
The Estate of Edis ESTEVEZ, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant,v.The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jessica Wisniewski of counsel), for respondents.
Mischel & Horn, P.C., New York (Scott T. Horn of counsel), for appellant.Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jessica Wisniewski of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 29, 2009, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 15, 2010, which denied plaintiff's motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There is no evidence in the record that defendant police officers, responding to a call to assist “an emotionally disturbed person,” used excessive force in restraining and handcuffing the decedent, whom they found extremely agitated and holding a large piece of broken ceramic vase in his hand ( see Koeiman v. City of New York, 36 A.D.3d 451, 829 N.Y.S.2d 24 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 814, 838 N.Y.S.2d 840, 870 N.E.2d 160 [2007] ). The record demonstrates that the officers believed that the decedent intended to injure himself, that the decedent resisted the officers' efforts to restrain him, fracturing the wrist of one and biting the other, and that the officers used the amount of force they reasonably believed was necessary to restrain and handcuff the decedent.
We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing.