19

- 769

- (L) Ekukpe v. City of New York


## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 4 0 Foley Square, in the City of New 2 York, on the 17 th day of August , two thousand twenty

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 

### GUIDO CALABRESI, 6 

### RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7 

### RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 David Ekukpe, 12 Plaintiff

- Appellee , 13 14

v. No. 19

- 769

- cv 15 No. 19

- 770

- cv 16 PO Juan Santiago, SGT John Ferrara , 17 Defendants

- Cross

- Claimants

- Appellants, 18 19

v. 20 City of New York , 21 Defendant

- Cross

- Defendant

- Appellee, 22 23 PO Osvaldo Hernandez, 24 Defendant

. 25

_____________________________________ 26 27 282 FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLE E EKUKPE : JOHN KNUSDEN (Edward Sivin, on the brief ), 1 Sivin & Miller, LLP, New York, NY. 2 3 FOR DEFENDANT

- CROSS

4 CLAIMANT

- APPELLANT SANTIAGO : MITCHELL GARBER , Worth, Longworth & 5 London, LLP, New York, NY

. 6 7 FOR DEFENDANT

- CROSS

8 CLAIMANT

- APPELLANT FERRARA: STEPHEN P. YOUNGER , Patterson Belknap 9 Webb & Tyler LLP, New York , NY (Benjamin 10 H. Weissman , Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler 11 LLP, New York , NY, Andrew C. Quinn, 12 Anthony J. Difiore, The Quinn Law Firm, White 13 Plains, NY, on the brief )

. 14 15 FOR DEFENDANT

- CROSS

- DEFENDANT

16 APPELLE NEW YORK CITY: DANIEL MATZA

- BROWN (Richard Dearing, 17 Devin Slack, on the brief ) , for James E. Johnson, 18 Corporation Counsel of the City of New York , 19 New York, NY. 20 21 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern 22
District of New York ( Analisa Torres , J .). 23
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 24

AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. 25

Defendant s
- Appellants

– law enforcement officers with the New York City Police 26
Department (“NYPD”)

– appeal from judgments entered by the United State s District 27
Court for the Southern District of New York (Torres, J .) after a jury trial. We assume the 28
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the arguments 29
on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our de cision to affirm. 30

O n July 17, 2014, NYPD Officer Juan Santiago and NYPD Sergeant John Ferrara 31
(together, “Defendants” or “officers” ) arrested Plaintiff

- Appellee David Ekukpe in front 323 of his residence and charged him with disorderly conduct, harassment, obstruction of 1
governmental administration, and resisting arrest. A fter obtaining video footage of the 2
incident, prosecutors subsequently dismissed all charges , prompting Ekukpe to 3

commence suit against the City of New York ( the “City”), Santi ago, Ferr a ra, and another 4

NYPD o fficer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, malicious 5
prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, failure to intervene, and First Amendment 6

violations , as well as for malicious prosecution in violation of New York state law

. 7
Prior to trial, Defendants asserted cross
- claims against the City for 8

indemnification , which t he City thereafter moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the 9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the City’s motion in part and 10
denied it in part , concluding that the City could decide whether to indemnify Defendants 11
after the conclusion of trial, a t which time the court would address , if necessary, whether 12

Defendants were entitled to indemnification as a matter of law

. 13

After a five

- day trial, t he jury found both Ferr a ra and Santiago liable for false 14
arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair tri al, and failure to intervene ; 15
the jury also found Ferr ar a liable for the use of excessive force. Citing New York General 16
Municipal Law Section 50

- k, the City declined to indemnify Defendants , spurring 17

Defendants to move for a determination that they were entitled to indemnification as a 18

matter of law . In the alternative, Defendants moved for the district court to hold a hearing 19

on the issue of indemnification . The district court denied Defendants’ motions , finding 20

that the City’s decision was supported by an adequate factual basis and that an 214 evidentiary hearing was not required to further develop the record

. The district court 1

also denied Defendants ’ motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rule s of Civil 2

Procedure and for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 , except as to Ferrara’s 3
motion for judgment as a matter of law on his failure to intervene claim , which it granted 4
in light of the jury’s finding that Ferrara had directly participated in the constitutional 5

violations

. 6
On appeal, Defendants argue that the district court erred in denying (1) both 7

Defend ants’ motion s for judgment as a matter of law as to the false arrest and denial of a 8

fair trial claims ; (2) Santiago ’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to Ekukpe’s 9

failure to intervene claim ; and (3) Ferrara ’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the 10
malicious prosecution claim. Both Defendants also argue that the district court abused 11
its discretion in denying their motions for a new trial based on allegedly misleading 12
statements made by Ekukpe’s counsel during summation . Finally, they contend that the 13
City acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to indemnify them , and that the district 14

court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on that matter

. 15
“Judgment as a matter of law may not properly be granted [to a defendant] under 16
Rule 50 unless the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff ], is 17
insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find in [the plaintiff ’s] favor.” Galdieri

– 18

Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp. , 136 F.3d 276, 289 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court reviews 19
the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo

. Manganiello 20
v. City of New York , 612 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 2010). T he Court reviews the district court’s 215 denial of a motion for new trial , Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. , 368 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2004) , and 1

its decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing for abuse of discretion , United States v. 2

Walters , 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2 018)

. 3

A. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment 4
a s a Matter of Law on Ekuk p e’s False Arrest Claims

. 5 Santiago and Ferrara argue that the district court erred in denying their motions 6
for judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim because they had probable cause 7
to arrest Ekukpe for disorderly conduct and/or obstruction of governmental 8

administration. “Under New York law, the existence of probable cause is an absolute 9

defense to a false arrest claim.” Jaegly v. Couch , 439 F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2006). “An 10
officer has probable cause to arrest when he or she has knowledge or reasonably 11
trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person 12

of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is 13
committing a crime.” Id. ( internal quotation marks omitted). 14
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, “with intent to cause public 15
inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof [,]

. . . he 16
congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful 17
order of the police to disperse.” N.Y. Penal Law § 240.20(6)

. To be liable, it must be 18

shown that “the individual (1) congregated with other per sons in a public place; (2) was 19
given a lawful order of the police to disperse; (3) refused to comply with that order; and 20
(4) acted with intent to cause or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, 21
annoyance or alarm.” Kass v. City of New York , 864 F.3d 200, 211 (2d Cir. 2017). A person 226 is liable for obstruction of governmental administration when “ he intentionally obstructs, 1
impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents 2

or attempt s to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of 3
intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful 4

act. ” N.Y. Penal Law § 195.05. 5
We agree with the district court that the evidence introduced at trial , viewed in the 6
light most favorable to Ekukpe , “could reasonably support the jury’s conclusion that [the 7
officers] did not have probable cause to arrest [Ekukpe] for disorderly conduct.” Provost 8
v. City of Newburgh , 262 F.3d 1 46, 157 (2d Cir. 2001). As the district court noted, Ekukpe 9
testified that in “response to the officers’ order to leave, he asked ‘why [he and his friends] 10
had to leave’, but did not raise his voice, curse, or do anything outside of ‘normal 11

conversation , ’ ” and “[t]his testimony is supported by the surveillance video.” S. App’x 12

13 (quoting 6/18/2018 Tr. at 46:24

– 47:16). And as the district court further noted, the jury 13

was free to reject Defendants’ self

- serving testimony that Ekukpe yelled profanity at 14

them. See Kerman v. City of New York , 374 F.3d 96, 123 (2d Cir. 2004). Thus, w hen viewing 15
the evidence in the light most favorable to Ekukpe, as we must, we cannot say that there 16

was “ov erwhelming

. . . evidence demonstrating the existence of probable cause” such 17
that the jury could not legally conclude otherwise. Provost , 262 F.3d at 157 ( internal 18
quotation marks omitted ). 19
As for Ferrara’s argument that there was probable cause to arrest Ekukpe for 20
obstruction of governmental administration , we agree with Ekukpe that Ferrara waived 217 t his argument by failing to raise it before the district court

. In his motion for judgment 1

as a matter of law, Ferrara argued only that there was sufficient evidence that he had 2
arguable probable cause to arrest Ekukpe on this ground

. See App’x 928

– 29

. But even on 3
the merits, Ferrara’s argument fails. T aking the evidence in the light most favorable to 4
Ekukpe, a reasonable jury could have found that he did not “physically” interfere with 5

the officers’ investigation. Again, Ekukpe testified that he simply asked why he and his 6
companions had to leave , and the jury was not required to credit the officers ’ self

- serving 7
testimony to the contrary

. Moreover, while Ferrara insists that Ekukpe ’s failure to 8
comply with a lawful order is alone sufficient to support a finding that he interfered with 9

the investi gation , the law is clear that the interference must “at least in part be ‘physical’ 10
and cannot consist solely of verbal statements

. ” Kass , 864 F.3d at 209 (citing People v. Case , 11
42 N.Y.2d 98, 101

– 02 (1977))

. Although t he jury was properly instructed that D efendants 12

“ claim [was] that they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for obstructing governmental 13

administration

. . . because plaintiff flailed his arms, kicked his legs, and twisted his body 14

while handcuffs were b eing applied , ” App’x 710

– 11 , the evidence at trial did not compel 15
a finding that D efendants’ version of events was true

. On these facts, the jury was simply 16
not compelled to find that Defendants had probable cause to arrest Ekukpe for 17
obstruction of governmental administration

. 18
In the alternative, Santiago and Ferrara contend they are entitled to qualified 19
immunity because they had at least “arguable probable cause ” to arrest Ekukpe. 20
Arguable probable cause exists when “it was objectively reasonable for the officer to 218 believe that probable cause existed, or

. . . officers of reasonable competence could 1
disagree on whether the probable cause test was met.” Kass , 864 F.3d at 206. The inquiry 2

is “whether any reasonable officer, out of the wide range of reasonable people who 3
enforce the laws in this country, could have determined that the challenged action was 4

lawful.” Figueroa v. Mazza , 825 F.3d 89, 100 (2d Cir. 2016)

. Thus, on review, a defendant 5
is entitled qualified immunity as matter of law “ if the evidence, viewed in the light most 6
favorable to [the plaintiff], established that it was objectively reasonable for [the 7
defendant] to believe he was jus tified in making the arrest.” Provost , 262 F.3d at 160. 8
Santiago ’s and Ferrara’s arguments on this point largely parrot their arguments 9
regarding probable cause

. But in making these arguments , Defendants again ignore the 10
requirement that the evidence , including all disputed facts, must be viewed in the light 11

most favorable to Ekukpe . When viewed in that light, t he evidence introduced at trial 12
amply supports the jury’s verdict and does not compel a conclusion that it was objectively 13

reasonable for the officer s to believe that probable cause existed

. 14

B. The District Court Did Not Err i n Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment 15
a s a Matter of Law on Ekukpe’s Fair Trial Claims. 16 To prevail on a claim for the denial of the right to a fair trial, a plaintiff must prove 17
that an “(1) investigating official (2) fabricates information (3) that is likely to influence a 18
jury’s verdict, (4) forwards that information to prosecutors, and (5) the plaintiff suffers a 19
deprivation of life, liberty, or property as a result.” Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039 , 20
838 F.3d 265, 279 (2d Cir. 2016). 219 Santiago argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there 1
was “never any chance that the allegedly false narrative contained in [the] arrest 2
paperwork and crimina l court complaint could influence a jury’s decision , ” since such 3

evidence would not have been admissible at trial. Santiago Br. 23. But while the 4
documents themselves may not have been admissible had Ekukpe’s case gone to trial, the 5

false information con tained in those documents surely would have been admissible and 6
material had it been elicited as testimony from the officers who wrote and/or approved 7
the reports. As we noted in Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Authority , “[w]hen a police 8

officer create s false information likely to influence a jury ’s decision and forwards that 9
information to prosecutors, he violates the accused ’ s constitutional right to a fair trial ”

– 10

even if a trial never occurs. 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1997)

. The “influence” prong does 11

not turn on whether the fabricated evidence is in fact used during a trial ; it focuses rather 12
on whether the fabricated evidence, if introduced during trial, could be expected to 13
influence the jury’s decision

- making process

. Thi s inquiry is based in concerns of “due 14
process of the law and fundamental justice.” Id. ; see also id. (“[L] ike a prosecutor's 15
knowing use of false evidence to obtain a tainted conviction, a police officer's fabrication 16
and forwarding to prosecutors of kno wn false evidence works an unacceptable 17

‘ corruption of the truth

- seeking function of the trial process. ’ ” (quoting United States v. 18
Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976 )). Clearly, Santiago’s false statements about Ekukpe being 19
the aggressor and the officers not using force would have been relevant to the jury’s 20
determination of credibility and liability had Ekukpe’s criminal case gone to trial. 2110 For his part, Ferrara argues that he did not deprive Ekukpe of a fair trial because 1
there was no evidence that he fabricated any evidence, and that the only “ inaccurate ” 2

information in the arrest documentation

– t hat no force was used

– would not have 3
influenced a jury because it was unrelated to the offenses with which Ekukpe was 4
charged. Ferrara Br. 28

– 29. But even though Ferrara did not directly draft the fabricated 5

report, t he jury was entitled to conclude that he acted in collaboration with Santiago to 6
deprive Ekukpe of his right to a fair trial. Indeed, there was ample evidence from which 7
the jury could conclude that Ferrara participated in the initial assault, submitted false 8
records internally to the NYPD , and then signed off on Santiago ’s false arrest report , 9

kno wing that the District Attorney’s Office uses such reports as the basis for charges

. See 10

Provost , 262 F.3d at 155. A nd while Ferrara attempts to portray the fabrication as 11
containing only a minor error , the jury was certainly free to conclude otherwise, since the 12
arrest paperwork

– viewed in the light most favorable to Ekukpe

– falsely described 13
Ekukpe as the aggressor and indicated that no force was in fact used by the officers

. 14
Those false statements, if e licited in testimony at trial, would surely have influenced the 15
jury in its decision making. Accordingly, the district court did not err in declining to 16

dismiss the fair trial c laims

. 17

C. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Ferrara’s Motion for Judgment a s a 18 Matter of Law on Ekukpe’s Failure to Intervene Claim

. 19 Santiago argues he did not have a reasonable opportunity to intervene to prevent 20
Ferrara from imposing an illegal chokehold on Ekukpe because the incident lasted less 21
than fifty seconds. Although “ [i] t is widely recognized that all law enforcement officials 2211 have an affirmative duty to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of citizens from 1
infringement by other law enforcement officers in their presenc e, ” an officer may not be 2

held liable unles s he had a “realistic opportunity to intervene to prevent the harm from 3
occurring.” Anderson v. Branen , 17 F.3d 552, 557 (2d Cir. 1994). “[W]hether a defendant 4

had a realistic chance to intercede will turn on such factors as the number of officers 5

presen t, their relative placement, the environment in which they acted, the nature of the 6
assault, and a dozen other considerations.” Figueroa , 825 F.3d at 107. “Among th e se 7
considerations, of course, the assault’s duration will always be relevant and will 8

fre quently assume great importance.” Id. 9

We a gree with the district court that “a reasonable jury could have concluded that 10
Santiago could have intervened,” and that the “surveillance video supports the jury’s 11
finding.” S. App’x 20. Although the altercation was brief, there is no “hard

- and

- fast 12
temporal cutoff ” for what constitutes adequate time to intervene. Figueroa , 825 F.3d at 13

107. Here, Santiago himself testif ied that he was in very close proximity to Ekukpe

– even 14
at one point “directly in front of” him , App’x 470

– a nd he identifies no “obstacles that 15
might have hindered [his] ability to intercede , ” Figueroa , 825 F.3d at 108

. Accordingly, 16

the district court did not err in denying Santiago’s motion for judgment on this claim

. 17

D. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Ferrara’s Motion for Judgment a s a 18 Matter of Law on Ekukpe’s Malicious Prosecution Claim

. 19 Ferrara argues that he cannot be liable for malicious prosecution because “ courts 20

in this Circuit require that the defendant himself ” (1) “ be directly involved in post

- arrest 21
processing, ” (2) “ file charges himself, ” or (3) “ communicate directly with the District 2212 Attorney.” Ferrara Reply Br. 12. To succeed on a claim for malicious prosecution, a 1
plaintiff must establish : ( 1) “ that Defendants either commenced or continued a criminal 2
proceeding against him, ” (2) “ that the proceeding terminated in his favor, ” (3) “ that there 3

was no probable cause for the criminal proceeding, ” and (4) “ that the criminal proceeding 4

was instituted with actual malice. ” Bermudez v. City of New York , 790 F.3d 368, 376

– 77 (2d 5
Cir. 2015). A jury “may permissibly find that a defendant initiated a prosecutio n where 6
he filed the charges or prepared an alleged false confession and forwarded it to 7

prosecutors .” Manganiello , 612 F.3d at 16 3 ( internal quotation marks and alterations 8
omitted). 9
Here, Ferrara had direct involvement in the arrest, and, in his supervisory 10
capacity, reviewed and signed off on the arrest report knowing that the Assistant District 11
Attorney was likely to use the document to initiate criminal prosecution s

. As with his 12
fair trial claim, t he evidence here supports a finding that Ferrara directly participat ed in 13

the constitutional violation. See Provost , 262 F.3d at 154. T he fact that Ferrara did not 14
draft the report himself and had limited contact with the prosecuto r is not enough to 15
shield him from liability

. 16

E. Defendants Are Not Entitled to a New Trial

. 17

Defendants insist that they are entitled to a new trial because Ekukpe’s counsel 18
mistakenly stated during summation that “disorderly conduct requires that [ Ekukpe] be 19
causing some form of public alarm ” prior to his arrest. App’x 626

. But while “ [a] party 20
is generally entitled to a new trial if the district court committed errors that were a ‘clear 2113 abuse of discretion’ that were ‘clearly prejudicial to the outcome of the trial , ’” Marcic v. 1
Reinauer Transp. Cos. , 397 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2005) (quot ing Pescatore v. Pan Am. World 2
Airways, Inc. , 97 F.3d 1, 17 (2d Cir. 1996)) , “ [r] arely will an attorney ’s conduct so infect a 3
trial with undue prejudice or passion as to require reversal , ” Reilly v. Natwest Mkts. Grp. , 4
181 F.3d 253, 271 (2d Cir. 1999) (int ernal quotation marks omitted). In deed , “ where the 5
jury’s verdict finds substantial support in the evidence, counsel ’ s improper statements 6
will frequently be de minimis in the context of the entire trial.” Marcic , 397 F.3d at 124

. 7
Although Ekukpe’s counsel’s statement of law was at a minimum incomplete and 8
arguably incorrect, t he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ 9

motions for a new trial

. Defendants do not dispute that t he district court properly 10
instructed the jury as to the elements of the offense , and likewise concede that the district 11

court advised the jury that “[i]f an attorney has stated a legal principle different from any 12
that I state to you in my instructions, it is my instructions that y ou must follow

. ” App’x 13

690 . Such instructions were clearly sufficient to cure any prejudice caused by counsel’s 14

misstatements in summation. S ee United States v. Gramins , 939 F.3d 429, 457 (2d Cir. 2019) 15
(“[W]e decline to recognize ‘manifest injustice’ o n the basis of two stray comments from 16
the government’s rebuttal summation, both of which were squarely addressed by the 17
district court’s instructions to the jury and neither of which would independently require 18
a new trial.”). 1914 F. The District Court Did Not Err in Denying Defendants’ Motion for 1 Indemnification

. 2 Finally, Defendants contend that the City’s decision not to indemnify them was 3
arbitrary and capricious. Under New York state law, the City must indemnify an 4
employee for conduct in compliance with the rules and regulations of the employee’s 5
agency at the time the plaintiff was injured, so long as the injury to the plaintiff was not 6
the result of the employee’s intentional wrongdoing or recklessness. N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 7
§ 50

- k(3). “The question whether an act was done in violation of an agency rule, or was 8

within the employee ’ s scope of employment, is a factual determination made in the first 9
instance by the Corporation Counsel, whose determinations may be set aside only if they 10
are not supported by the evidence or are in some other sense ‘arbitrary and capricious. ’” 11
Mercurio v. City of New York , 758 F.2d 862, 865 n.1 (2d Cir. 1985) (citing Williams v. City of 12

New York , 64 N.Y.2d 800, 802 (1985 )). 13
As a preliminary matter, the City’s initial offer to include Defendants in the global 14

settlement offer does not somehow render their later decision to exclude them

– following 15
Defendants’ failure to take advantage of the City’s offer

– arbitrary

. While Ferrara now 16
contends that he was not given sufficient to time to accept the original settlement, he 17
points to no r ule requiring him to have unlimited time to negotiate ; moreover , Ferrara 18
himself acknowledges that he had enough time to consider the offer and then make a 19

counteroffer , which the City rejected

. 20
Regardless, the City’s decision was neither arbitrary nor c apricious. The City is 21
not required to indemnify a defendant for “intentional wrongdoing or recklessness ,” N.Y. 2215 Gen. Mun. Law § 50

- k(3) , and the City’s assessment of Defendants’ wrongdoing or 1

recklessness was supported by the findings of the Civilian Complaint Review Board 2
(“CCRB”) , the videotape of the incident, and the jury’s findings of liability and award of 3
punitive damages , s ee Coker v. City of Schenectady , 613 N.Y.S.2d 746 , 747

– 48 (1994) (finding 4

th at a jury’s award of punitive damages provided support for the City’s decision not to 5
indemnify Defendants under a similar statute). Defendants make much of the City’s 6
decision to indemnify other defendants in other cases

. But , as i nde mnification 7
determinations depend on the particular facts at hand , see Lemma v. Nassau Cty. Police 8
Officer Indemnification Bd. , 31 N.Y.3d 523, 531 ( 2018) , Defendants must do more than point 9
to the City’s decisions in other cases

. This is especially true where, as here, the officers 10
elected to take their cases to trial and the City was thus presented with a much more 11

voluminous record on which to base its decision. 12
Defendants’ argument that the district court improperly relied on the findings of 13

the CCRB is similarly unavailing

. T he fact that Defendants may or may not have certain 14
employment rights meriting a hearing prior to termination say s nothing of their right to 15
indemnification after trial

. Moreover, Defendants had a full and fair opportunity to 16

present their defense in court, yet failed to convincingly do so. At bottom, the City 17
maintains discretion to indemnify officers

. I n light of the substantial factual support for 18
the City’s decision, the district court did not err in denying Defendants ’ request for an 19
evidentiary hearing. 2016 We have reviewed Santiago’s and Ferrara’s remaining arguments and find them 1
to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is 2

AFFIRMED

. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 5 6