Was Officer’s Conduct Objectively Reasonable Under the Circumstances?
Debra Pleva sued the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Police Department to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained during an altercation with police officers employed by the County and the Department. The incident occurred while the police officers were attempting to arrest Pleva’s boyfriend. The County and SCPD moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging negligence, assault, and battery. The Supreme Court denied those branches of the motion. The County and SCPD appealed.
New York does not recognize a cause of action alleging negligent assault or battery. As such, if the only inference that may be drawn from plaintiff’s evidence is that defendant’s contact with plaintiff was intentional, . . . the issue of negligence should not be submitted to the jury. Although that argument was raised for the first time on appeal, the Court reached the issue, as it presented a pure question of law that appeared on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture.
The County and SCPD established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing Pleva’s cause of action alleging negligence by submitting a transcript of her testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, in which she testified that a police officer grabbed her, picked her up, and threw her to the ground, causing her injuries. Where, as here, intentional offensive conduct was established, the actor may be found liable for assault or battery, but not negligence. In opposition, Pleva failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of her alleged injuries were caused by unintentional conduct. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion of the County and SCPD that was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligence.
However, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging assault and battery. Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on state law claims if their actions are “objectively reasonable”. The determination of whether a use of force was objectively reasonable is an “intensely factual” question best left for a jury to decide. Here, the submissions by the County and SCPD failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the police officer’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.