John Carro

The case involved Bernard McCummings, who was shot in the back by a New York City Transit Authority police officer during a robbery attempt in a subway station, resulting in his paralysis; McCummings sued the Transit Authority for excessive use of force after he had pleaded guilty to robbery. The jury accepted McCummings's account that he was fleeing without posing an immediate threat and awarded him over $4 million in damages for pain, suffering, and future care. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. The court reasoned that the officer's use of deadly force against a non-threatening fleeing suspect violated constitutional standards from Tennessee v. Garner and was not justified under Penal Law § 35.30, with the plaintiff's version of events supported by medical evidence.

civil rightstorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved a landlord's counterclaim to evict a long-term rent-stabilized tenant from a Manhattan hotel apartment after the tenant allowed his adult nephew, who has chronic schizophrenia, to reside there and engage in repeated disruptive behavior including public nudity, verbal abuse, unsanitary conditions, and assaults. The trial court denied eviction, finding insufficient proof of an ongoing nuisance and issuing warnings about future incidents, while awarding the landlord back rent. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the landlord was entitled to possession because the tenant had already permitted a documented and intolerable nuisance under applicable rent stabilization regulations, with the nephew's condition and past incidents making continued residency untenable. The court also remanded for determination of the landlord's attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the main issues.

propertytorts & liability

In Loughman v. AW Flint Co., Inc., a custodial worker sued the manufacturer of a wooden stepladder after falling and sustaining injuries when a step broke, claiming strict products liability based on an alleged design defect. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages reduced by his contributory negligence, but the trial court set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial. The appellate court reversed, reinstating the jury verdict on the grounds that it was not palpably incorrect, as the evidence presented a classic battle of experts on whether features like protruding step edges and truss bar placement made the ladder defective and caused the fall. The court held that the trial judge had improperly usurped the jury's fact-finding role where the plaintiff's expert testimony was not plainly unworthy of belief and the jury could fairly infer causation and damages from the record.

torts & liabilityprocedure