New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit reviewed limits on qualified immunity in fabrication-of-evidence claims. Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Second Circuit considered whether a prosecutor who acted in an investigative role could face liability for fabricating evidence that later contributed to a loss of liberty. The case required the court to decide if a federal prosecutor could rely on qualified immunity when the complaint alleged that he created false evidence during the investigation and later used the same evidence before a grand jury. The appeal focused on the scope of the constitutional right at issue, the link between the alleged misconduct and the later loss of liberty, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the events.

Background Facts

Zaher Zahrey filed a civil action in 1998 against New York City police officers and Kings County prosecutors. He claimed that the defendants conspired to create false evidence that tied him to robberies and a murder. He also named Assistant United States Attorney Martin Coffey, alleging that Coffey took part in the investigation before acting as a prosecutor. According to the complaint, the investigation began in 1994 after the death of William Rivera, a former auxiliary officer. Rivera’s family had asked Zahrey, who worked for the NYPD, to inquire about the status of the case. Internal Affairs detectives later interviewed witnesses, including inmate Sidney Quick, who eventually made statements that tied Zahrey to robberies. Quick first claimed that Zahrey took part in multiple robberies but then changed his story to statements about guns and drugs. Detectives also approached Lisa Rivera, who testified before a federal grand jury after receiving help and support from investigators.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit addressed limits on § 1983 damages in challenges to convictions in Heck v. HumphreyHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state prisoner could use a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to seek money damages based on claims that would call a criminal conviction into question. The case involved questions about the point at which a civil rights claim could move forward when the person bringing the claim remained subject to a conviction that had not been set aside in any court. The Court reviewed the interaction between the federal civil rights statute and the federal habeas corpus statute and explained how federal courts should handle damages claims tied to an outstanding state conviction.

Background Facts

Roy Heck was convicted in Indiana state court of voluntary manslaughter for the death of his wife. He received a 15-year sentence. While his direct appeal was still pending in the Indiana courts, Heck filed a civil action in the United States District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint named prosecutors and a state police investigator as defendants. Heck claimed that they engaged in unlawful acts that led to his arrest and conviction. He alleged that the investigators carried out an improper investigation, destroyed evidence that he stated could have helped him, and conducted an illegal voice identification procedure. He sought money damages. He did not seek release from custody or any injunctive relief.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit determined summary judgment was improper on false arrest civil rights claims. Ackerson v. City of White Plains, 702 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2012)

by Stephen Bilkis

This civil rights action arose from an arrest that stemmed from a report by a resident who said that a man approached her in her driveway and questioned her about her family. The arrest led to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. The case addressed the limits of probable cause, the scope of qualified immunity, and the level of supervision that municipalities must provide to officers. The appeal also involved questions related to false arrest and malicious prosecution.

Background Facts

On November 8, 2007, Shawn Ackerson approached a woman in her driveway. He asked about her household and said that her car had hit his earlier that day. The woman told him to leave and contacted the police. Officer Cotto responded and filed a report. The report noted that Ackerson said he found her address through her license plate and believed that her husband had been near a location linked to Ackerson’s former girlfriend. The woman also told officers that she feared Ackerson because she did not know him and felt unsafe during the encounter.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Court Declines Discovery Delay in Civil Rights Action Alleging Sexual Assault by NYPD Detectives in Doe v. City of New York, 18-cv-670 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020)

by Stephen Bilkis

This case grew out of a civil rights lawsuit filed by Anna Doe after an arrest that she said involved serious misconduct by two New York City detectives. While the detectives also faced criminal charges in state court based on the same events, the focus in federal court was the progress of Doe’s civil case and whether the detectives could delay discovery until their criminal matter ended. The district judge examined their request, reviewed the magistrate judge’s order, and considered whether the discovery schedule in the civil rights lawsuit should change.

Background facts

Anna Doe filed a civil action in Kings County Supreme Court against Detectives Richard Hall and Eddie Martins, Sergeant John Espey, Officer Gregory Markov, unnamed officers, and the City of New York. She alleged that Hall and Martins arrested her on September 15, 2017 without legal cause and then raped her in a police van. After the City removed the case to federal court, the City, Espey, and Markov moved to dismiss. The federal court dismissed all claims against Espey and dismissed some claims against the City and Markov. The case continued against Hall and Martins. It also continued on a respondeat superior claim against the City for false arrest and imprisonment, and on a First Amendment retaliation claim against Markov.

Published on: December 11, 2025

Second Circuit determined the record supported an excessive force claim in Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015)

by Stephen Bilkis

Brown v. City of New York, 798 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015), involved a street encounter between a New York City resident and police officers that led to an arrest and the use of force. The case later went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court reviewed video evidence of the arrest and the parties’ accounts. The appeal centered on whether the officers’ force during the arrest, including the use of pepper spray, violated the Fourth Amendment. The case showed how courts treated force that took place during a short encounter and how juries had a role in judging that force under the governing standard.

Background facts

The incident took place in lower Manhattan near a Starbucks. Brown went to the store and wanted to use the bathroom. Store staff refused and called the police after reports about her conduct, including banging on the door. Officers responded and approached Brown on the sidewalk near metal scaffolding.

Published on: August 3, 2025

Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Over Poor Lighting Moves Forward. Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Pelletteri v. Ferrantino & Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 50647(U), the Supreme Court of Kings County reviewed motions for summary judgment in a personal injury case where the plaintiff alleged she fell due to poor lighting and an unmarked single step.

Background Facts

On March 6, 2020, at approximately 6:20 p.m., Joanne G. Pelletteri was making a food delivery at a building located at 8414 4th Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. The property was owned by Ferrantino and Company, Inc.

Published on: June 24, 2025

Injury After Diving from Dock Leads to Premises Liability Claim. Sess v. McGorry, 2019 NY Slip Op 51106(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York property owners are responsible for keeping their premises reasonably safe for people who are invited onto the property. When a guest is hurt while using a feature like a dock or pool, the court looks at whether the owner was negligent in maintaining the property or failed to give warnings. In Sess v. McGorry, the court considered whether homeowners were liable after a guest was hurt diving from their dock into shallow water. The decision looked at the property conditions, the injured guest’s actions, and whether the legal defenses of assumption of risk or sole responsibility applied.

Background Facts
On July 30, 2015, at about 1:30 a.m., Tristan Sess was injured when he dove headfirst into Moriches Bay from the dock of the McGorry family’s summer home in Westhampton Beach, New York. Sess was 19 years old and serving in the Navy. He had visited the McGorry home at least once before to socialize and swim after training with other young men interested in joining Navy special forces.

On the night of the injury, Sess and a group of friends had grilled food, spent time in the hot tub, and repeatedly jumped and dove off the dock into the bay. Sess had consumed a few beers earlier in the day. His girlfriend joined the group that evening. Sess warned her about the shallow water. About ten minutes later, he performed a shallow dive and struck his head on the bay floor.

Published on: June 19, 2025

Product Design Liability and Circular Saws. Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, product liability law allows an injured person to bring a lawsuit when a product causes harm because it was not reasonably safe. One type of claim involves defective design. In these cases, courts ask whether the product’s design created an unreasonable risk of harm when used as intended. Even when a product functions correctly, it may still be unsafe if a safer design was available at a reasonable cost. This case involved a circular saw and whether it had a design that made it unsafe to use, even though the safety guard worked as intended.

Background Facts

The plaintiff used a circular power saw made by Black & Decker to cut wood for a home project. He stood in his driveway, cutting 2×4 boards on sawhorses. He held the saw in his right hand and braced the wood with his left. The saw had a guard over the blade that retracted when cutting and was supposed to return to a closed position when not in use.

Published on: June 19, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted After Child Injured in Pool Accident. Crampton v. Garnet Health, 2023 NY Slip Op 32278(U) (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

Swimming pool accidents sometimes lead to serious injuries, especially when a pool is not properly maintained, supervised, or labeled with warnings. In New York, legal responsibility for these injuries depends on many factors, including the condition of the pool, the actions of those involved, and the roles of manufacturers, sellers, and property owners. Courts often examine whether the pool had any dangerous defects, whether the injured person was warned about potential hazards, and whether a product or property condition contributed to the accident. This case involved a child who was injured while using an above-ground pool. The court reviewed the evidence to determine whether any party could be held legally responsible for what happened.

Background Facts

In 1982, defendants Paul and Florence Marinaccio purchased a four-foot above-ground swimming pool and a deck kit from defendant Pool Mart, Inc. They installed the pool and deck at their home. Five years later, in 1987, they sold the property—including the installed pool—to defendants Perry and June Hinsken.

Published on: June 17, 2025

Hospital Failed to Show It Didn’t Cause Patient’s Fall. Crampton v. Garnet Health, 2023 NY Slip Op 32278(U) (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Crampton v. Garnet Health, the Supreme Court of Orange County considered whether summary judgment was appropriate in a case where a patient fell after being discharged from a hospital. The court reviewed whether the hospital had a duty to protect the patient from falling and whether it had met its legal burden to dismiss the claims against it before trial.

Background Facts

The plaintiff, Susan Crampton, visited Garnet Health on March 6, 2021, due to severe abdominal pain. She was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and discharged the same day. Hospital staff provided discharge instructions and helped her dress. A nurse then walked her toward the exit. As Crampton neared the automatic doors, she began to fall. A hospital employee, Kevin Silva, caught her and lowered her to the ground.