X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Decedent Robert Ortiz, through his administrator, brings claims against NYPD officer James Hasper under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law for battery.1 His claims arise from an incident in which officer Hasper shot Ortiz after Ortiz led police on a car chase through Brooklyn and, after finding himself hemmed in on a crowded street, rammed a police car in an effort to continue his flight. Defendant Hasper moves for summary judgment on these claims. For the reasons set out below, Hasper’s motion is granted. I. Background The following facts are drawn from the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 statements, deposition transcripts, video footage of the incident, and other documentary materials the parties submitted. The events leading up to the shooting are largely undisputed. Ortiz was driving while intoxicated, having consumed “a pint of E&J brandy” and smoked a “dime bag” of marijuana.2 Officers began pursuing Ortiz after he proceeded straight through an intersection from the left-turn-only lane, cutting off and side-swiping a van in the process, on Rockaway Parkway in Brooklyn. Seeing the officers, Ortiz sped up, drove down a side street, struck a fire hydrant, re-emerged on Rockaway Parkway, and continued driving until he encountered traffic on a busy stretch of that street. As Ortiz approached the traffic, Officer Hasper, who was in an unmarked vehicle in the vicinity, joined the pursuit. The moments leading up to and including the shooting were captured on video by a storefront security camera on Rockaway Parkway, and this decision is based in significant part on my review of that video. See, e.g., City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1-3 (2021) (reversing Court of Appeals and reinstating district court’s grant of summary judgment in excessive-force case, based in significant part on body-camera video); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (reversing denial of summary judgment in a fleeing-motorist case where video recording “clearly contradicts the version of the story told by respondent”). The video recording is two minutes and one second long. It shows Ortiz’s 1995 Chevy Suburban driving down Rockaway Parkway, which at that point is a two-lane street with parked cars on the side of both traffic lanes. Exhibit L — Surveillance footage (“video recording”), ECF No. 115-12. A number of pedestrians are visible on the near sidewalk and in a crosswalk in the background. Before Ortiz’s vehicle enters the frame, at approximately the thirteen-second mark, we see a woman run into the foreground of the video, hurriedly pushing a child off the sidewalk and into a store. Ortiz’s black Suburban appears two or three seconds later, traveling at a higher rate of speed than the cars that preceded it. Though no lane markings are visible, it is clear that Ortiz is driving at least partially in the path of oncoming traffic, as he navigates around a double-parked car on his right. Officers are running along the passenger side of the Suburban; at the same time, numerous pedestrians run for cover. Around the eighteen-second mark, Ortiz comes to a stop just short of a car stopped in front of him. A police car pulls up and parks behind him. As more officers approach, Ortiz reverses the Suburban, which weighs more than two-and-a-half tons,3 and crashes into the police car with enough force that the police vehicle rocks (violently, at first) for more than five full seconds. See Defendant’s 56.1 Statement,

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
May 15, 2024
Philadelphia, PA

The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.


Learn More
May 16, 2024
Dallas, TX

Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.


Learn More

We are seeking an associate to join our Employee Benefits practice. Candidates should have three to six years of employee benefits experienc...


Apply Now ›

Associate attorney position at NJ Immigration Law firm: Leschak & Associates, LLC, based in Freehold, NJ, is looking for a full time ass...


Apply Now ›

Duane Morris LLP has an immediate opening for a senior level, highly motivated litigation associate to join its dynamic and growing Employme...


Apply Now ›
04/29/2024
The National Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
04/15/2024
Connecticut Law Tribune

MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS


View Announcement ›
04/11/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›