Later, they saw Pride leave the residence. The officers observed Pride and another man in front of the residence engage in activity consistent with a drug transaction. That night, police officers surveilled the residence for approximately one hour, confirming Pride's connection with the apartment identified in the warrant. On August 24, 2011, the police obtained a no-knock search warrant for the residence. In August 2011, a police officer employed by defendant Binghamton Police Department obtained information that Michael Pride, an alleged armed and dangerous felony suspect, resided at a certain apartment in that city. We further clarify that plaintiffs may establish a special duty when a municipality, acting through its police force, plans and executes a no-knock search warrant at a person's home, and that such a duty runs to the individuals within the targeted premises at the time the warrant is executed.I. Consistent with our precedent and the purpose of the special duty rule, we reiterate that plaintiffs must establish that a municipality owed them a special duty when they assert a negligence claim based on actions taken by a municipality acting in a governmental capacity. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has inquired whether New York's " 'special duty' requirement" applies "to claims of injury inflicted through municipal negligence" or if it applies only to claims premised upon a municipality's negligent "failure to protect the plaintiff from an injury inflicted other than by a municipal employee" (975 F3d 255, 291 ). City of New York New York State Trial Lawyers Association, amici curiae. New York City Bar Association New York County Lawyers Association et al. New York Civil Liberties Union New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials et al. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. The Court of Appeals answered that a special duty arises when the police plan and execute a no-knock search warrant at an identified residence, running to the individuals within the targeted premises at the time the warrant is executed. On appeal, the federal circuit court certified a question of law to the Court of Appeals. The district court granted the motion, determining that the City did not owe Plaintiff a special duty. The City moved for judgment as a matter of law. The jury determined that the City was liable under a respondeat superior theory. Plaintiff bought this action in federal court against the City of Binghamton and its police department, arguing that the City breached a special duty and was liable under a respondent superior theory for a police officer's negligence in shooting Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reiterated that plaintiffs must establish that a municipality owed them a special duty when they assert a negligence claim based on actions taken by the municipality acting in a governmental capacity and that plaintiffs may establish a special duty when a municipality's police force plans and executes a no-knock search warrant at a person's residence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |