Opinion
No. 98 Civ. 4686 (LTS)(KNF)
February 26, 2002
ORDER
On May 11, 2001 Defendants moved in limine to exclude from the evidence to be admitted at trial: 1) all evidence concerning Plaintiff's claim for false arrest or allegations of lack of probable cause; (2) all evidence concerning allegations of excessive force used against Plaintiff by New York City Police Officers other than evidence of excessive force inside the 78th Police Precinct following Plaintiff's arrest on December 6, 1995; (3) all evidence relating to Defendants' inability to identify the New York City Police Officer(s) who transported Plaintiff from the scene of the arrest to the 78th Precinct; (4) the testimony of Dr. Sylvian Elizair, Plaintiff's proposed medical expert; (5) the testimony of Angel Rodriguez, Plaintiff's proposed expert on police procedures, practices and records; and (6) all evidence concerning Plaintiff's criminal court appearance on December 7, 1995.
On June 12, 2001 and August 21, 2001, the following issues as to the motion in limine were decided. As to (1) the motion to exclude all evidence concerning Plaintiff's claim for false arrest or allegations of lack of probable cause, the Court denied the motion without prejudice as moot. As to (2) the motion to exclude all evidence concerning allegations of excessive force used against Plaintiff by New York City Police Officers other than evidence of excessive force inside the 78th Police Precinct following Plaintiff's arrest on December 6, 1995, the motion was granted. As to (3), exclusion of all evidence relating to Defendants' inability to identify the New York City Police Officer(s) who transported Plaintiff from the scene of the arrest to the 78th Precinct, the motion was granted to the extent such evidence would be proffered in connection with any contention that Defendant was beaten other than in the incident in the station house; it was deemed without prejudice with respect to any other proffer. As to (4) the request to preclude, the testimony of Dr. Sylvian Elizair, Plaintiff's proposed medical expert, the motion was denied without prejudice. As to (5) the request to preclude the testimony of Angel Rodriguez, Plaintiff's proposed expert on police procedures, practices and records, the motion was granted and the testimony is precluded. As to (6) the request to preclude all evidence concerning Plaintiff's criminal court appearance on December 7, 1999, the state court Judge's marks on the court record are not admissible for their truth and decision is reserved on the probative/prejudicial value with respect to any relevant hearsay proffer of such material.
As to the scope of issue to be tried with respect to excessive force, the in limine motion to preclude proof of other use of excessive force was granted. The request to give a Noseworthy charge was denied.
With respect to Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's deposition proffers, as to Detective Borellli's deposition:
As to pages 15, line 11, through page 19, line 2, Defendant's objections are sustained to the extent of testimony specific to responsibility for transportation from page 18, line 7, through page 20, line 5. Defendant's objection to page 42, line 6, through 43, line 3, is sustained. Defendant's objection to page 66, line 11, through page 66, line 20, is sustained. Defendant's objection to page 67, line 10 through page 73, line 10 is sustained except: for page 68, line 7, through page 68, line 19; page 71, line 5 through page 71, line 14; page 72, line 3, through page 73, line 10. Defendant's objection to page 79, line 12 through line 14 is sustained.
With respect to Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's proffer of Detective Gonzalez's deposition:
The Court sustained the objection to the portion from page 20, line 16 through page 21, line 23, but will allow the admission of page 21, line 24, through page 22, line 13. The Court reserved decision on the objection pertaining to page 24, line 3, through page 27, line 8. As to page 27, line 9, through page 37, line 3, the Court reserved its decision to the extent the testimony is proffered in connection with credibility. With respect to page 37, line 4, through 52, line 5, any passages that are purely attorney colloquy will not be read and the Court reserved decision as to the remainder to the extent it is proffered for impeachment or credibility. As to page 57, line 22 through page 74, line 12, the Court will reserve decision as to page 57, line 22, through 58, line 4, and page 59, line 23 through page 61, line 7. As to page 70, line 25 through page 72, line 21, and as to line 21 of page 72, the Court sustains the objection. As to page 83, line 2, to page 85, line 13, the objection is sustained. As to page 82, line 7 through line 9, and page 87, line 2, through line 16 and page 89, line 13 through line 16, the objection is overruled. As to pages 96, line 4 through page 97, line 17, the Court overruled the objection.
With respect to the deposition of Lieutenant Tancredi, the objection is overruled.
With regard to Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's exhibits, the Court reserved decision.
The Court reserved decision on the objections to Defendants' proposed exhibits E, F and P. The parties entered into a stipulation concerning Exhibit H. The objection to Exhibit I was withdrawn.
SO ORDERED.