Estate of Estevez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Estate of Estevez v. City of New York

88 A.D.3d 603, 931 N.Y.2d 303

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.3d 603 (Estate of Estevez v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Estevez v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 603, 931 N.Y.2d 303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

There is no evidence in the record that defendant police officers, responding to a call to assist “an emotionally disturbed person,” used excessive force in restraining and handcuffing the decedent, whom they found extremely agitated and holding a large piece of broken ceramic vase in his hand (see Koeiman v City of New York, 36 AD3d 451 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]). The record demonstrates that the officers believed that the decedent intended to injure himself, that the decedent resisted the officers’ efforts to restrain him, fracturing the wrist of one and biting the other, and that the officers used the amount of force they reasonably believed was necessary to restrain and handcuff the decedent.

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

There is no evidence in the record that defendant police officers, responding to a call to assist “an emotionally disturbed person,” used excessive force in restraining and handcuffing the decedent, whom they found extremely agitated and holding a large piece of broken ceramic vase in his hand (see Koeiman v City of New York, 36 AD3d 451 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]). The record demonstrates that the officers believed that the decedent intended to injure himself, that the decedent resisted the officers’ efforts to restrain him, fracturing the wrist of one and biting the other, and that the officers used the amount of force they reasonably believed was necessary to restrain and handcuff the decedent.

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 603, 931 N.Y.2d 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-estevez-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack