Court upholds $120,000 in damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution claim

This case arose when plaintiff sued her former boyfriend for instigating her unlawful arrest. She claimed the defendant falsely told the police that she made harassing phone calls and that she had otherwise called him in violation of an order protection, resulting in her arrest and prosecution. Plus, plaintiff says, defendant assaulted her. The case went to trial and plaintiff won. Now it goes to the Court of Appeals, which says the damages were not too high.

The case is Levitz v. Bree, a summary order issued on January 24. This is not a federal civil rights claim, as plaintiff abandoned those claims prior to trial. So the jury only heard the state law claims. While it rejected the battery claims, the jury found in plaintiff's favor on the false arrest and malicius prosecution claims, awarding her $120,000 in damages: $50,300 for pain and suffering and $70,000 in punitive damages.

The jury never knows this, but the case often does not end when the jury reaches a verdict. The parties continue litigating the case. The losing party tries to convince the trial judge that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that the damages were too high. That's what happened here. But those efforts often fail. In this case, the Court of Appeals (Hall, Sullivan and Bianco) finds that the evidence supports the finding that defendant gave the police false evidence resulting in plaintiff's arrest and prosecution. The evidence also establishes that defendant lied to the police in claiming plaintiff made harassing phone calls. Here is how the district court sized up the evidence:

The defendant contends that I should grant his Rule 50 motion on the basis of his trial testimony that the plaintiff made excessive and unwelcome telephone calls and left messages on his home answering machine. It was, however, up to the jurors to decide whether they believed the defendant’s testimony. Their verdict is evidence that they did not. The plaintiff testified that she and the defendant had a long-standing romantic relationship during the period of the purportedly harassing communications, that they frequently communicated with each other via email and telephone throughout the course of their relationship, and that the communications were consensual. The jury also heard evidence that the defendant’s wife discovered the defendant’s affair with the plaintiff sometime in December of 2013 or January of 2014, around the time the defendant first filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied making harassing calls and leaving harassing voice messages; she testified that the defendant continued to contact her even after he obtained an order of protection against her, and that he pressed her to resume their affair, and accept a plea offer to appease his wife. The plaintiff’s testimony was corroborated, at least in part, by emails and photographs, which the jury also saw. On the other hand, there was far less evidence to corroborate the defendant’s version; the phone records were either nonexistent or did not support the defendant’s testimony, and even the defendant’s wife’s testimony was not entirely consistent with the defendant’s description of the events.

What about the damages awards? Were they too high? Juries have discretion to award damages, but if they award too much money, the court can reduce them. The jury has no idea its damages award will be scrutinized by the lawyers and judges long after the trial ends. As the trial court saw it, the compensatory damages were actually lower than comparable cases. Here is what the trial judge said about the false arrest damages:

The jury’s compensatory damages award for the false arrest claims was well within the range of, and in fact significantly lower than, awards affirmed in comparable cases involving similar injuries. See, e.g., Martinez v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 445 F.3d 158, 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming a $360,000 compensatory award for a false arrest claim where the plaintiff was in custody for 19 hours, had not been physically assaulted, but had experienced emotional distress such as sleeplessness and anxiety); Graham, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 715 (affirming jury’s compensatory award of $150,000 for his false arrest claim where the plaintiff had combined injuries including approximately one hour of lost liberty, some minor physical pain and injury, and past and future emotional harm, including fear, panic and humiliation); Martinez v. Gayson, No. 95–CV–3788, 1998 WL 564385, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 1998) (reducing compensatory damages award to $160,000 for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when the plaintiff was arrested at work and detained for approximately five hours, suffered humiliation but no physical injuries, and was tried on subsequent criminal charges and acquitted).

The jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $22,500 for the two arrests ($12,500 for the first arrest, and $10,000 for the second arrest). The evidence showed that when the plaintiff was arrested on February 25, 2014, she was handcuffed, and held overnight for 19 hours, and that she was held for another three hours when she was arrested on March 9, 2014. There was testimony from the plaintiff’s mother and friend that the plaintiff suffered some emotional and mental distress as a result of the arrests. The jury’s compensatory damages award for the false arrest claims was well within the range of, and in fact significantly lower than, awards affirmed in comparable cases involving similar injuries. See, e.g., Martinez v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 445 F.3d 158, 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming a $360,000 compensatory award for a false arrest claim where the plaintiff was in custody for 19 hours, had not been physically assaulted, but had experienced emotional distress such as sleeplessness and anxiety); Graham, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 715 (affirming jury’s compensatory award of $150,000 for his false arrest claim where the plaintiff had combined injuries including approximately one hour of lost liberty, some minor physical pain and injury, and past and future emotional harm, including fear, panic and humiliation); Martinez v. Gayson, No. 95–CV–3788, 1998 WL 564385, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 1998) (reducing compensatory damages award to $160,000 for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when the plaintiff was arrested at work and detained for approximately five hours, suffered humiliation but no physical injuries, and was tried on subsequent criminal charges and acquitted).

The trial court added that the compensatory damages of $27,800 on the malicious prosecution claim were also reasonable, as plaintiff had to appear in state criminal court at least ten times, the case lasted for 18 months, and she went through a criminal trial. The jury awarded plaintiff approximately $17,000 for emotional and mental distress, "an amount that falls well within the reasonable limits of awards in comparable malicious prosecution cases."

Defendant also wants to reduce the $70,000 punitive damages award. The trial court affirms it, stating, "The jury found that the defendant lied to the police on two separate occasions in order to induce them to arrest the plaintiff and prosecute her. This conduct is plainly reprehensible and justifies the award of punitive damages." The trial court stated:

The jury’s compensatory damages award for the false arrest claims was well within the range of, and in fact significantly lower than, awards affirmed in comparable cases involving similar injuries. See, e.g., Martinez v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 445 F.3d 158, 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirming a $360,000 compensatory award for a false arrest claim where the plaintiff was in custody for 19 hours, had not been physically assaulted, but had experienced emotional distress such as sleeplessness and anxiety); Graham, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 715 (affirming jury’s compensatory award of $150,000 for his false arrest claim where the plaintiff had combined injuries including approximately one hour of lost liberty, some minor physical pain and injury, and past and future emotional harm, including fear, panic and humiliation); Martinez v. Gayson, No. 95–CV–3788, 1998 WL 564385, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 1998) (reducing compensatory damages award to $160,000 for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims when the plaintiff was arrested at work and detained for approximately five hours, suffered humiliation but no physical injuries, and was tried on subsequent criminal charges and acquitted).