Excessive Force Allegation Survives
On September 18th, Judge Buchanan of the Schenectady County Supreme Court made significant rulings in the Mount case against the City of Saratoga Springs and its officials.
All complaints related to racial profiling were dismissed.
All claims against former Chief of Police Veitch and former Public Safety Commissioner Mathiesen were also dismissed.
The city of Saratoga Springs had sought a summary judgment, urging the court to dismiss all claims entirely.
While Judge Buchanan decided not to dismiss the excessive force claim, he emphasized in his opinion that the Mount family's case primarily relies on circumstantial evidence, particularly the exclusive opinions of two medical doctors. These doctors contend that Mount's injuries could not have been caused by a fall and must have resulted from blunt force trauma.
Plaintiff also offers affidavits from two medical experts who opine that Darryl Mount was not injured by falling from the scaffolding or fire escape as theorized by the defense. Both physicians point to the nature of the injuries he suffered and also the absence of certain other types of injuries. In particular, both physicians opine that if Mount had fallen from the height described by Kvasnack and Dr. Sikirica and sustained the facial injuries he suffered, he would certainly also have suffered a broken neck, but he did not.
They go on to opine that Mount did not sustain his injuries in a fall from the scaffolding (or fire escape, as described by Kvasnack).
Instead, they opine specifically that he suffered blunt force trauma to his face as the result of a beating. Because there is nothing in the record to show that Mount received his injuries at the hands of someone other than police officers, the medical experts also raise a question of credibility as to the officers' testimony.
Defense counsel argues vigorously that Plaintiff is relying on circumstantial, speculative evidence that ignores the testimony of the only eyewitness, that being Kvasnack.
Indeed, the defense argues at one point that this Court cannot consider any circumstantial evidence proffered by Plaintiff. Certainly, defense counsel does not appear to argue that circumstantial evidence cannot be considered in general, as the Appellate Division has held in several contexts that circumstantial evidence can defeat a motion for summary judgment where the movant has carried their initial burden of proof (see e.g. James B. Nutter &Co. v. County of Saratoga, 215 AD3d 1183 [3d Dept 2023] [tax foreclosure]; Vetere v. Pembrooke Land Dev., LLC, 156 AD3d 1195 [3d Dept 2017] [trespass]; Guimond v. Village of Keeseville, 113 AD3d 895 [3d Dept 2014] [municipal liability]).
Moreover, the specific case advanced by Defendants does not fully support their argument.
Defendants cite Moreira v. City of New York (2022 WL 1230412 [ED NY Jan. 14, 2022, No. 19-CV-5402 (CBA/RER)]), a case involving the alleged use of excessive force by police officers. A reading of the Moreira decision shows that the court did consider circumstantial evidence, and indeed, discussed it in some detail.
The Moreira court was unconvinced that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to defeat summary judgment because there was no evidence to show any connection between the plaintiff's injuries and action by the police. The distinction in this case is the expert opinion evidence that Mount's injuries were sustained as the result of a beating.
In sum, questions of fact and of credibility prevent an award of summary judgment to the defense on the use of excessive force by Saratoga Springs police officers. This affects several of the arguments leveled by the defense at Plaintiff's various claims. Plaintiff's claims can be roughly divided between the alleged actions of police officers at the scene and those of supervisory and administrative City officials."
Comments