Williams v. The City of New York et al

Filing 47

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE: The motions in limine, [34, 35, 46], are granted in part and denied in part, except as to the issues on which the Court has reserved decision. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 3/9/2012. (Gonen, Daniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------x
:
TIMMY WILLIAMS,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DETECTIVE
:
SNEIDER, OFFICER SCANDOLE,
:
LIEUTENANT ANTHONY CAROSELLI,
:
DETECTIVE MICHAEL EGAN, DETECTIVE :
ANTHONY VIGGIANI, and DETECTIVE
:
MATTHEW COLLINS,
:
:
Defendants.
:
----------------------------------------------------------------x

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
10-CV-2676 (JG) (LB)

Plaintiff’s motion to preclude cross-examination regarding his 1998 conviction
for gang assault is granted, as the risk of unfair prejudice greatly outweighs the probative value.
Plaintiff’s application to preclude reference by defense counsel to plaintiff’s religion is granted,
but the application to preclude all references to the nickname “Shag Do” is denied. Objections to
particular uses of the nickname by defense witnesses may be made at trial.
As stated at today’s appearance, defendants are precluded from eliciting evidence
(including through questions of plaintiff) of plaintiff’s prior arrests. This ruling is without
prejudice to an argument at trial that plaintiff’s testimony has opened the door to such evidence.
Defendants’ eleventh hour motions to dismiss the battery claim on statute-oflimitations grounds and on the ground that plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim may
have merit, but the timing of the motion counsels in favor of resolving it after trial in the event
plaintiff prevails; the same is true with respect to the motion to dismiss the state law claims for
failure to comply with New York General Municipal Law § 50-h.

Defendants’ motion to preclude two of plaintiff’s witnesses from testifying is
denied. I will rule on objections to admitting the DNA records into evidence if and when those
records are offered.
The Court reserves decision on whether plaintiff should be precluded from
presenting evidence concerning his acquittal and whether plaintiff may recover compensatory
damages with respect to his claim that his arrest was unlawful due to the absence of a warrant.

So ordered.

John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: March 9, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

2