New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 26, 2026

Failure to Exhaust and Deliberate Indifference Standards Applied to Inmate Medical Claim. Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

When an incarcerated person claims that prison officials denied medical care, federal law sets clear requirements. Before filing a lawsuit in federal court, an inmate must first use the prison grievance system. In addition, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of medical care, the inmate must show that officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Courts apply both procedural and substantive rules in reviewing these cases.

In Sonds v. St. Barnabas Correctional Health Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined both requirements. The court addressed whether the plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act and whether the facts alleged satisfied the constitutional standard for deliberate indifference.

Background Facts

Published on: January 16, 2026

Liability for inmate-on-inmate assault. Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under New York law, the State has a duty to protect inmates in its custody from reasonably foreseeable harm. In correctional facilities, this duty includes taking reasonable steps to prevent assaults by other inmates. The State is not an insurer of inmate safety. It is responsible only for risks that it knew or should have known about under the circumstances.

In Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247 (2002), the Court of Appeals addressed how courts should analyze foreseeability in an inmate-on-inmate assault case. The decision clarified the scope of the State’s duty and explained when a negligence claim against the State may proceed to trial.

Background Facts

Published on: January 9, 2026

Correctional Facility Liability for Inmate Assault: Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007)

by Stephen Bilkis

New York law requires correctional authorities to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from foreseeable harm. While the State and municipalities are not insurers of inmate safety, they owe a duty of care to safeguard those in custody from reasonably foreseeable risks, including inmate-on-inmate violence. When an assault occurs in a detention facility, courts examine whether officials had actual or constructive notice of a risk and whether they failed to take reasonable measures to prevent harm. In Rodriguez v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 349 (1st Dep’t 2007), the Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed whether the City could be held liable for a razor attack committed by one inmate against another inside a segregation unit.

Background Facts

On March 26, 1995, Alex Rivera was sleeping in his cell at the New York City Adolescent Reception and Detention Center in the Bronx. While he slept, another inmate, Curtis Armstrong, slashed him with a razor. Rivera sustained cuts to the back of his neck, the side of his face, and his arms.

Published on: January 2, 2026

Federal Court Reviews Excessive Force and Medical Care Claims in Newland v. Achute, 932 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal law allows incarcerated individuals to bring civil rights claims when they believe their constitutional rights were violated. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person may sue state actors for conduct that deprives them of rights protected by the United States Constitution. In the prison setting, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Courts have held that this protection applies to claims involving excessive force and denial of medical care. In Newland v. Achute, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York examined whether a former inmate presented sufficient evidence to proceed with claims that correction staff used excessive force and denied him proper medical treatment.

Background Facts

Wayne C. Newland was incarcerated at the Adolescent Reception Detention Center (ARDC) on Rikers Island in December 1991. He had pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property and was awaiting sentencing. According to court records, the facility had an order requiring that he be produced in court on December 18, 1991 for sentencing.

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.