Some legal advice from the Court of Appeals on false arrest claims

The plaintiff went to trial on his federal and state false arrest claims. The jury ruled in his favor on both claims, awarding him $150,000 for pain and suffering and another $35,000 in punitive damages. After the trial court vacated both verdicts on qualified immunity grounds, reasoning that the officer had "arguable probable cause," the plaintiff appealed. As I wrote in this blog post, the Court of Appeals finds that while the officer did not have probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, the officer did in fact have arguable probable cause, so the federal claim is gone. It's a different story with the state false arrest claim.

The case is Triolo v. Lee, issued on January 21. The case arises from an ugly family dispute that resulted in altercations. The police arrested plaintiff for assault without fully investigating evidence that would have shown the plaintiff did not actually attack his family. On the federal claim, the Court of Appeals said the officer's willful failure to explore this evidence demonstrated a lack of probable cause. But the Court also said a reasonable officer, in light of the entire record, would have arrested plaintiff. That's the "arguable probable cause" that gets you qualified immunity.

What about the state false arrest claim? Until now, the law was not clear about state false arrest claims and qualified immunity. The question is whether the municipality can be held liable for false arrest even if the officer gets qualified immunity under state law. In this case, the Eastern District of New York said "the County was not liable because [Defendant] Lee was immune from liability and it was sued for Lee's conduct only under a theory of respondeat superior." 

Courts have long held that municipalities can be held liable on a respondeat superior theory if one of its officers makes a false arrest. In this case, the Second Circuit (Chin, Pooler and Lohier) says New York law does not "categorically bar a principal's vicarious liability when an agent is immune from liability." But the cases the Court cites for this point are not false arrest cases but traditional torts cases. However, the Court notes the Restatements provide similar guidance. Bottom line: even if the officer has qualified immunity (and he does in this case on the state law claim), the county (or the town, city, or whatever) can still be liable for false arrest on a respondeat superior theory. There was some language in Kass v. City of New York, 864 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2017), that suggested otherwise, but the Court in Triolo clears this up, untangling a complex state law issue without sending it to the New York Court of Appeals, which it often does for unsettled areas of state law (Judge Lohier would send it to the New York Court of Appeals, but the majority in Triolo says in a footnote that the issue is not that complex and the case is almost six years old and we have to finish off this case once and for all). Since municipalities cannot enjoy qualified immunity, the county is on the hook for Lee's false arrest, even if Lee is immune from suit.

The Court will never give legal advice, but the advice here for false arrest lawyers is you ought to file those notices of claim for state law false arrest claims, and not just rely on Section 1983 for the federal claims, which often are dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. With short deadlines, notices of claim have to be filed quickly, and some municipalities actually have their own notice of claim rules and procedures that no one knows about that serve as trap doors even for experienced counsel. I learned that the hard way last year, but some brilliant lawyering on my part got around it. Bringing a notice of claim also entitles the municipality to a quick Rule 50-h hearing that allows its lawyers to ask your client questions prior to any lawsuit. That can be a hassle, but in this case it paid off. Triolo's jury verdict is restored.