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)

Download PDF
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 : ----------------------------------------------------------------x NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE 10-CV-2676 (JG) (LB) Plaintiff’s motion to preclude cross-examination regarding his 1998 conviction for gang assault is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

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.

Why Is My Information Online?