Kravtsov v. Town of Greenburgh

GRIGORY KRAVTSOV, IRNA KRAVTSOV, DIANA KRAVTSOV CAMILLA KRAVTSOV, and REBECCA KRAVTSOV, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF GREENBURGH, JOHN DOES ONE THROUGH TEN intended to be GREENBURGH COURT OFFICERS, and TOWN OF GREENBURGH EMPLOYEES involved in and responsible for the acts alleged herein, Defendants.

10-CV-3142 (CS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: July 9, 2012

OPINION AND ORDER

Appearances:

Mitchell Ian Weingarden

Law Offices of Mitchell I. Weingarden, PLLC

White Plains, New York

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Carl S. Sandel

Drew W. Sumner

Morris Duffy Alonso & Faley

New York, New York

Counsel for Defendants

Seibel, J.

Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 13), and Plaintiffs' cross-motion for sanctions, leave to amend the Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), (Doc. 9), leave to file a late notice of claim pursuant to New York General Municipal Law § 50-e, and summary judgment, (Doc. 17). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff's motions are, respectively, GRANTED, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, DENIED, and DENIED.

I. Background

The following facts are undisputed except where noted.¹

1. Plaintiff's Medical Condition

Plaintiff² was born in the Ukraine in 1960 and immigrated to the United States in 1980. (Kravtsov Aff. ¶ 3.)³ He is Jewish, wears a kippah (also known as a yarmulke), and speaks with a pronounced Ukrainian accent. (Id.) Due to cancer and other conditions, he has had several operations on his digestive system. (Id. ¶ 4.) In October 2005, he underwent a total gastrectomy (removal of his stomach), removal of his gastroesophageal sphincter, removal of his duodenum (part of his small intestine), and reconstruction of his bile and pancreatic ducts. (Id. ¶¶ 4—5.) As a result of his surgeries, he now suffers from dumping syndrome, explosive diarrhea, non-digested nutrient contamination followed by arthritic inflammation, hypoglycemia, and other symptoms. (Id. ¶ 6.) These symptoms are triggered by stress and eating too quickly or while in an erect position, among other ways. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Because of Plaintiff's condition, he must eat eight to ten times a day. (Id. ¶ 12.) To reduce the risk of cramping, pain, and explosive diarrhea, he must eat in a reclining or semi-reclining position and continue to recline for ten to fifteen minutes or more afterwards. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) He cannot eat food that is hard or difficult to digest. (Id. ¶ 8.) The only types of food he can tolerate include parboiled, minced vegetables and bland fish, vegetable juices, boiled kasha-style grains, and ripe bananas, grapes, or fruit juice for immediate sugar when he begins to feel the effects of hypoglycemia. (Id. ¶ 8.) According to Plaintiff, he can tolerate larger portions of food and more types of food if he is at home in a restful, stress-free environment and reclining in a dark room, but as his stress level rises, the amount and types of foods that he can tolerate decrease "proportionately" and the symptoms described above increase "exponentially." (Id. ¶ 9.) His main source of nutrition, other than supplements, is a liquefied, predigested "medical food" consisting of parboiled and minced vegetable soups, with added digestive enzymes and other nutrients. (Id. ¶ 10.)

2. The Events at the Greenburgh Town Court

On April 6, 2009, Plaintiff appeared at the Greenburgh Town Court (the "Town Court") in response to a traffic summons that he was issued in the Town of Greenburgh (the "Town") earlier in 2009. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶ 1.)⁴ According to Plaintiff, he arrived at 2 p.m. for this conference, which was scheduled for 3 p.m. and concluded at 4:07 p.m. (See April 6, 2009 Hr'g Tr. 4, 7.)⁵ Ultimately, Plaintiff received an adjournment to August 17, 2009. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶¶ 2-4; April 6, 2009 Hr'g. Tr. 6.) On August 17, 2009, Plaintiff entered the courthouse with a bag containing his court papers and containers of his medical food. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶¶ 5-6; P's 56.1 ¶6; Kravtsov Dep. 17.⁶) At the security checkpoint, Plaintiff was instructed to open his bag for inspection. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶ 8; Kravtsov Dep. 18.) David Pinn, a court officer, then told Plaintiff that food was not allowed into the courtroom. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶ 9; Kravtsov 50-h Tr. 28;⁷ Pinn Dep. 153.⁸)

Plaintiff has provided conflicting versions of what happened next. At his examination pursuant to New York General Municipal Law Section 50-h, he said he did not object or "question [the] righteousness" of the instruction that food was not allowed in the courtroom and that in a "very amicable" conversation involving "no confrontation whatsoever," he asked where he could leave his food and was told he could leave it on a table at the checkpoint. (Kravtsov 50-h Tr. 60-61.) At his deposition, Plaintiff said he then explained the nature of his disability and that he was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (See Kravtsov Dep. 35, 37.) He acknowledged, however, that his "being Jewish ha[d] absolutely nothing to do with" his not being allowed to bring food into the courtroom. (Id. at 45.) In a declaration submitted in connection with the instant motions, however, Plaintiff claims that Pinn "treated [him] badly and made very sure to tell [Plaintiff] that [he] would not receive special treatment," and that "[a]lthough [Pinn] did not make anti-Semitic remarks, it appeared by his comments and demeanor that [Plaintiff's] accent and kippah played apart in [Pinn's] bad treatment of [him]." (Kravtsov Aff. ¶¶ 31 -32.)⁹ At his deposition, Pinn did not remember if Plaintiff explained hisdisability, why he needed to bring his food into court, or that he was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but testified that Plaintiff would not have been allowed to bring his food into court unless he got permission from someone else in the courthouse, regardless of any explanation Plaintiff offered. (See Pinn Dep. 155-56.)

Plaintiff then left his bag at the security checkpoint and proceeded into the courthouse without his food. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶ 11.) He attended a conference with a representative from the Town Attorney's office, and then left the courthouse with his bag and went outside. (See id. ¶ 12; Kravtsov Dep. 73.)¹⁰ At this time, Plaintiff felt dizzy and nauseous but found a grassy area near the parking lot where he could sit and take his food. (See Kravtsov Dep. 74-75.) Plaintiff was able to take one small swallow, (see Kravtsov Aff. ¶ 41),¹¹ before Pinn appeared and told him, "Get up. Pick up your stuff. You cannot sit here. You cannot eat here. Just get up," (Kravtsov Dep. 78). Pinn testified that he told Plaintiff that he could not sit in the area behind the courthouse for security reasons but could sit on a set of stairs that Pinn could see. (See Pinn Dep. 193-94.) According to Pinn, Plaintiff could have been doing anything behind the building, Plaintiff walked with the officer back towards the courthouse entrance, but stopped and said that he could not wait to see the judge without taking his food. (See Kravtsov Dep. 81.) The officer responded that no food was allowed in the courtroom, but told Plaintiff that he could eat on the steps. (See id.; Pinn Dep. 201-02.) According to Plaintiff, "he pointed [to] the steps . . . but with such a smirk and such a derogative connotation that . . . what he really meant [was] . . . that there [was] absolutely no place . . . [he could] sit and eat." (Kravtsov Dep. 81-82.) Plaintiff also said that the area in which the officer indicated Plaintiff could eat, on the courthouse steps near the door, was not in the shade, although Plaintiff cannot remember whether he told the officer that he needed to be in the shade when eating. (See id. at 82.)¹² According to Pinn, Plaintiff mentioned that he could not eat in the sun, and he then told Plaintiff that he could sit on a different set of stairs under an awning and in the shade. (See Pinn Dep. 193.)

Eventually, Plaintiff went back into the courthouse and appeared before the court, obtaining an adjournment of his trial to October 26, 2009. (Ds' 56.1 18-19.)¹³ On October 26, prior to appearing for trial, Plaintiff prepared himself at home so as to minimize the chance that he would need to take his food into the courtroom, although he was unable to remember at his 50-h examination whether he actually ate any of his food at the courthouse that day. (See id. ¶ 21; Kravtsov 50-h Tr. 85-86.) On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff appeared for his trial at the courthouse, was convicted, and was ordered to pay a fine. (See Ds' 56.1 ¶ 18-19.)

3. Video Surveillance at the Town Court

The Town Court is equipped inside and outside with video surveillance cameras, which record only video, not audio. (Marasse Aff. ¶ 4.)¹⁴ There is a camera on the top landing of the steps in front of the courthouse, two cameras in the lobby area, one camera in the courtroom, and two cameras in a back office area. (See Pinn Dep. 83; see also Weingarden Decl. Exs. 1 la-c (camera screenshots of what appears to be the security screening area with a metal detector, the front landing, and the back office area). On or about October 20, 2009, Richard Marasse, a Deputy Town Attorney representing the Town in this case as indicated on the docket, received a handwritten notice of claim from Plaintiff that included a request that the Town produce copies of video recordings from the surveillance cameras which, according to the notice, "show[] that on August 17, 2009, around Noon Time P.O. #501 chased and harassed [Plaintiff] outside of the court." (Marasse Aff. ¶ 1-2; see Weingarden Decl. Ex. 9 ("August 17th Notice").) On November 10, 2009, the Office of the Town Attorney received a more formal notice of claim from Plaintiff's attorney, which did not include a request for video, but did offer a general description of Plaintiff's claim similar to that in Plaintiff's handwritten October 20th notice, stating that on August 17, 2009, Plaintiff was "publically [sic] ...