Utica police assault lawsuit will move forward

Listen to this article

A lawsuit against the city of Utica will proceed after a state appeals court upheld a lower court decision that denied the city’s motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Peter R. Morgan filed the lawsuit seeking damages for injuries he allegedly suffered when Utica Police officers arrested him.

Morgan accused police of assault and battery, based on allegations that, “during his arrest, fingerprinting, transport and arraignment, he was subjected to forcible touching.”

State Supreme Court Justice Julie G. Denton in January 2024 denied a defense motion for summary judgment.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed her ruling.

Attorneys for Utica filed a motion for summary judgment, which Denton denied “with respect to plaintiff’s claim of assault and battery at the time of arraignment,” the Fourth Department wrote.

The city had the initial burden of submitting evidence “sufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact,” according to the Fourth Department decision.

“We conclude that defendant failed to meet its initial burden on the motion with respect to the claim of assault and battery at the time of plaintiff’s arraignment, and thus the court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion,” the court wrote.

In support of the motion, the city submitted a handwritten summons and complaint verified by Morgan, who represented himself, as well as reports, deposition transcripts of police officers involved in the arrest and processing of plaintiff, and video recorded by body-worn cameras of several officers, and surveillance video taken at the police station.

The evidence submitted by the city addressed the conduct of the officers at various times, including handcuffing, booking and escorting Morgan to the police station, “it is insufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact with respect to the claim of assault and battery at the time of arraignment because defendant did not submit any evidence regarding police conduct during that time frame,” the court wrote.

“We reject defendant’s contention that it met its burden with respect to the claim of assault and battery at the time of arraignment by relying on the allegations in plaintiff’s verified complaint,” the court wrote.

“Even assuming … that it is proper to treat the verified complaint as an affidavit … that evidence is nevertheless insufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact inasmuch as plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was ‘forcibly touched’ at the time of his arraignment and that the force was ‘excessive, unjustified and unwarranted,’ and not simply, as defendant contends, that contact occurred while the officers were escorting plaintiff by holding onto his arms,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035