Rosado v. Soriano et al
| Edward Rosado |
| Amaury Soriano, John Doe One, John Doe Two and City Of New York |
| 1:2016cv03310 |
| May 3, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Bronx |
| Ronnie Abrams |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
183
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 182 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of City Of New York, Amaury Soriano, John Doe One, John Doe Two against Edward Rosado. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Mem orandum Opinion & Order dated December 13, 2021, Plaintiff's motion for a new trial is denied. Judgment is entered for Defendant; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 12/14/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
182
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 177 MOTION to Set Aside Verdict FED R. CIV. PROC. 59 (a). filed by Edward Rosado. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs motion for a new trial is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate docket entry 177, close this case, and enter judgment for Defendant. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 12/13/2021) (rro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER: After a three-day trial, a jury found in favor of Defendant. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to upload to ECF the Court Exhibits from trial, each of which is attached to this Order: Court Exhibit 1: Voir Dire Questionnaire,Cour t Exhibit 2: Jury Draft Charge, Court Exhibit 3: Jury Charge Court Exhibit 4: Jury Note, Court Exhibit 5: Verdict Form. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/26/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) (rj)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER: Trial on Plaintiff Edward Rosado's claim of excessive force against Defendant New York City police officer Amaury Soriano is scheduled to commence on August 11, 2021. Rosado's claim stems from an arrest effectuated by Officer Sor iano in the Bronx, New York on the morning of May 4, 2013. Subsequent to the arrest, the Office of the Bronx District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Rosado. Officer Soriano moves to preclude Rosado from testifying that he was not cri minally charged or prosecuted for the events of May 4, 2013. That motion is granted. At today's final pre-trial conference, the Court ruled that the affidavit in support of declining prosecution, proffered by Rosado, is inadmissible under Fed eral Rule of Evidence 403. The Court ruled on the one hand that the probative value of that document was slight at best because the question of whether or not Plaintiff in fact committed a crime before his encounter with the police has no direct b earing on the question of excessive force. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 389, 396 (1989) (holding that a claim of excessive force turns on the objective reasonableness of the force applied, considering, among other factors "the severi ty of the crime at issue"). On the other hand, there was a real danger that the jury would be led to believe that the District Attorney's decision not to charge Rosado with a crime "offer[s] [a] conclusion[] regarding the factual is sues the jury was to determine," Morales v. City of New York, No. 99-CV-10004 (DLC), 2001 WL 8594, at *6 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2001), namely the reasonableness of the force employed. For similar reasons, the Court finds that the probative val ue of any testimony concerning the prosecution of Rosado is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. "Since the use of excessive force is impermissible even during a lawful arrest," ; including one that leads to a criminal prosecution, the determination as to whether Rosado's conduct would support the filing of a criminal charge has no bearing on the "jury's assessment of [an] excessive-force claim." See, e.g., Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 858 (2d Cir. 1996). Contrary to Rosado's contention, whether or not the District Attorney opted to bring charges against Rosado does not bear on the "severity of the crime at issue." The jury will be able to assess that factor based on the testimony of the witnesses to the May 4, 2013 encounter. Because "[t]he reasonableness inquiry depends only upon the officer's knowledge of circumstances immediately prior to and at the moment that he made the split- second decision to employ force," Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 1996) (emphases added), the actions that law enforcement agencies took subsequent to the arrest are not relevant to Rosado's claim for exc essive force, and, in any event, are substantially more prejudicial than probative. Both parties are thus precluded from offering testimony or evidence as to any criminal charges or proceedingsor lack thereofthat were initiated against Rosado sub sequent to his arrest. To eliminate any potential confusion, I will instruct the jury that the only issue that they must determine at trial is the reasonableness of the force employed in connection with the May 4, 2013 encounter between Rosado and Officer Soriano, and that whether or not Rosado was charged pursuant to that arrest, and what, if anything, happened as a result, has no bearing on that determination. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/10/2021) (rj)
|
|
Filing
161
ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's order of July 1, 2021, the parties were required to submit a joint pretrial order, among other filings, by July 8, 2021. Dkt. 150. The parties have not filed this order. They shall file such an order, contai ning the information specified in Rule 6(A) of this Court's individual rules, by no later than August 4, 2021. Trial in this action will commence on August 11, 2021, following the selection of the jury, in Courtroom 110 of the Thurgood Marsha ll United States Courthouse. The final pretrial conference will be held on August 10, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. in that same courtroom. Seating for spectators in the courtroom itself is limited in light of pandemic-related safety precautions. Members of th e public and press may access these proceedings remotely using the following call-in number: Call-in Number: (888) 363-4749; Access Code: 1015508. SO ORDERED. ( Pretrial Order due by 8/4/2021. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/10/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 110, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Ronnie Abrams.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/2/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
142
ORDER: In light of the upcoming Juneteenth holiday, tomorrow's conference is hereby adjourned until Monday, June 21, 2021 at 10:00 am. SO ORDERED., Scheduling Conference set for 6/21/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ronnie Abrams. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 6/17/2021) (rj)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER In light of the parties recent letters, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties appear for a brief scheduling conference on Friday, June 18 at 11:00 am to discuss their ability to proceed with trial on August 9 and/or to select alternative d ates for trial. The Court will hold this conference by telephone. The parties shall use the dial-in information provided below to call into the conference: Call-in Number: (888) 363-4749; Access Code: 1015508. This conference line is open to the public. ( Scheduling Conference set for 6/18/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Ronnie Abrams.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 6/16/2021) (ate)
|
|
Filing
133
ORDER: The following is hereby ORDERED: The parties shall submit a joint status letter no later than March 19, 2021, informing the Court whether, after discussing settlement further, they still intend to proceed to trial. If so, they sha ll advise the Court whether they and their witnesses are available to begin trial on August 9, 2021. Absent objection filed by March 19, the parties shall be prepared to try this case on August 9, 2021. In accordance with the Court' ;s individual rules, the parties shall submit a joint pretrial order, motions in limine, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pretrial memoranda of law by July 5, 2021; any oppositions shall be filed by July 12, 2021; and any replies shall be filed by July 19, 2021. A final pretrial conference is scheduled for August 2, 2021 at 10:00 am. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 7/5/2021. Pretrial Order due by 7/5/2021. Responses due by 7/12/2021. Replies due by 7/19/2021.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 3/15/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER: It is hereby ordered that all parties appear for a conference on Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:00 am to schedule a trial date in this action. (As further set forth in this Order.) The Court will hold this conference by telephone. The parties shall use the dial-in information provided below to call into the conference: Call-in Number: (888)363-4749; Access Code: 1015508. This conference line is open to the public. ( Telephone Conference set for 3/12/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Ronnie Abrams.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 3/10/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER: The defendants shall, on or before October 21, 2020, file their response to the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, Docket Entry No. 108. Any reply shall be filed on or before October 28, 2020. ( Responses due by 10/21/2020, Replies due by 10/28/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 10/7/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
120
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 105 MOTION for Reargument re: 96 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 101 Memo Endorsement,, . MOTION for Reconsideration re; 96 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 101 Memo End orsement, . filed by Edward Rosado. Accordingly, the Court finds no grounds on which to grant a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 105. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 9/15/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons explained during today's telephone conference, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Def endants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff's false arrest and municipal liability claims, but not as to the excessive force claim. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 72. Plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery, Dkt. 95, shall be addressed to Judge Fox. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 6/26/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER: The Court will have a telephone conference to discuss Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment on Friday, June 26, at 3:15 p.m. The parties shall use the following dial-in information for the conference: Call-In Number: (888) 3 63-4749 Access Code: 1015508. The parties are advised that this is a public line - thus available to the public and press - and no recordings are permitted. If the parties are unavailable at this time, they should notify the Court and propose alternative dates for the conference. SO ORDERED., Telephone Conference set for 6/26/2020 at 03:15 PM before Judge Ronnie Abrams. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 6/23/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER: On January 17, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 72. With their motion, Defendants filed supporting papers and exhibits. It appears, however, that Exhibit I, labeled "Photos," is not the exhibit that Defendants intended to submit. Dkt. 74. Accordingly, no later than Thursday, June 18, 2020, Defendants shall submit the correct Exhibit I. SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 6/16/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER granting 67 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File: Application granted. Absent good cause, no further extensions will be granted. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 11/21/2019) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 46 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion for leave to supplement the complaint, Docket Entry No. 46, is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 3/25/2019) (anc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
