Opinion ID: 786794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Crossan's Qualified Immunity and Privilege Defenses

Text: 70 The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). A right is sufficiently clearly established if it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). 71 As a general rule, police officers are entitled to qualified immunity if (1) their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for them to believe their acts did not violate those rights. 72 Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 648 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1076, 115 S.Ct. 721, 130 L.Ed.2d 627 (1995); see, e.g., Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 614-15, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999). 73 The matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law. See, e.g., Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 589, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396; X-Men Security, Inc. v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56, 66 (2d Cir.1999); Genas v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services, 75 F.3d 825, 830 (2d Cir.1996). In contrast, the matter of whether a defendant official's conduct was objectively reasonable, i.e., whether a reasonable official would reasonably believe his conduct did not violate a clearly established right, is a mixed question of law and fact. See, e.g., Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d 416, 422 (2d Cir.1995); Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d at 649-50. A contention that — notwithstanding a clear delineation of the rights and duties of the respective parties at the time of the acts complained of — it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe that his acts did not violate those rights has its principal focus on the particular facts of the case. Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 78-79 (2d Cir.1991); see, e.g., Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d at 649-50. Although a conclusion that the defendant official's conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law may be appropriate where there is no dispute as to the material historical facts, see, e.g., Lennon v. Miller, 66 F.3d at 421; Glass v. Mayas, 984 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1993); Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 921 (2d Cir.1987), if there is such a dispute, the factual questions must be resolved by the factfinder, see, e.g., Kerman II, 261 F.3d at 241; Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d at 649; Calamia v. City of New York, 879 F.2d 1025, 1036 (2d Cir.1989). Though `[i]mmunity ordinarily should be decided by the court,' ... that is true only in those cases where the facts concerning the availability of the defense are undisputed; otherwise, jury consideration is normally required.... Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d at 649 (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228, 112 S.Ct. 534, 116 L.Ed.2d 589 (1991)). After receiving  the jury['s] ... deci[sion as to] `what the facts were that the officer faced or perceived,' the court then may make the ultimate legal determination of whether qualified immunity attaches on those facts.  Stephenson v. Doe, 332 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir.2003) (emphases added); see, e.g., Warren v. Dwyer, 906 F.2d 70, 76 (2d Cir.) ( If there are unresolved factual issues which prevent an early disposition of the defense, the jury should decide these issues on special interrogatories. The ultimate legal determination whether ... a reasonable police officer should have known he acted unlawfully should be made by the court on the facts found by the jury. (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S.Ct. 431, 112 L.Ed.2d 414 (1990). 74 In ruling that Crossan was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the district court held, as set forth in Part I.F. above, both that the law governing the lawfulness of Crossan's treatment of Kerman was not clearly established in October 1995 and that Crossan's conduct was objectively reasonable. See Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at -. We conclude that these rulings were foreclosed by Kerman II under the law-of-the-case doctrine and by the principles discussed above. 75
76 Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, `[w]here a case has been decided by an appellate court and remanded, the court to which it is remanded must proceed in accordance with the mandate and such law of the case as was established by the appellate court.' United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d 1200, 1202 (2d Cir.1974) (quoting 1B Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.404[10], at 571 (2d ed.1974) (footnotes omitted)); see, e.g., Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 840 F.2d 162, 167 (2d Cir.1988). Where issues have been `explicitly or implicitly decided on appeal,' ... the law-of-the-case doctrine obliges the district court on remand to follow the decision of the court of appeals.... Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 812 (2d Cir.) (quoting United States v. Uccio, 940 F.2d 753, 758 (2d Cir.1991)) (emphasis ours), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 821, 113 S.Ct. 71, 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992). 77 Where the appellate court has decided a question of law, the lower court on remand lacks discretion to decide that question to the contrary. See, e.g., In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255, 16 S.Ct. 291, 40 L.Ed. 414 (1895); Soto-Lopez v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 840 F.2d at 167; United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d at 1202-03. Accordingly, when the court of appeals has remanded a case for trial after ruling that summary judgment in favor of a given party was inappropriate because the evidence indicated the existence of genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the jury, the district court cannot properly, on remand, grant judgment as a matter of law to that party on the basis of trial evidence that is not substantially different. See, e.g., Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d 332, 341-42 (2d Cir.1993); Doe v. New York City Department of Social Services, 709 F.2d 782, 788-89 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 864, 104 S.Ct. 195, 78 L.Ed.2d 171 (1983); see also Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 813 F.2d 535, 539-40 (2d Cir.1987) (reversing grant of summary judgment for the defendant after remand where, on first appeal, this Court had rejected the defendant's contention that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial, and no new material facts were adduced on remand), abrogated on other grounds by Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). See generally Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (the standard for granting summary judgment `mirrors' the standard for judgment as a matter of law, such that `the inquiry under each is the same' (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986))); Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 341 (as to whether there are fact issues that should be decided only by the jury, the same standard that applies to a pretrial motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 also applies to motions for judgment as a matter of law during or after trial pursuant to Rule 50). 78 In the prior appeal in the present case, we noted the well-established principle that, in order for a right to be clearly established,  `[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right,' Kerman II, 261 F.3d at 236-37 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). In Glass v. Mayas, a case decided before the events at issue here, involving physicians who took the plaintiff to a mental hospital against his will and confined him there pursuant to state law, we had noted that `a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members.' 984 F.2d at 57 (quoting O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 576, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975)) (emphasis ours). In Kerman II, we reversed the Kerman I ruling that Crossan was entitled to summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity on Kerman's unlawful seizure and false imprisonment claims for Kerman's involuntary hospitalization because we found that there were factual issues to be tried. Although we did not cite Glass v. Mayas in our analysis of Crossan's qualified immunity defense, in reversing the district court's ruling we necessarily rejected the proposition that Kerman's rights in October 1995 were not clearly established, for the matter of whether an asserted right was clearly established at the relevant time is a question of law. If Kerman's rights had not been clearly established, we would have affirmed the grant of summary judgment; there would have been no need for a trial. 79 In sum, in remanding for trial in Kerman II, we implicitly held that it was sufficiently clear in light of preexisting law that Kerman had a right not to be detained or involuntarily hospitalized by an officer who (on Kerman's version of the facts) did not know, and who patently ignored opportunities to determine, the seriousness of Kerman's condition and whether he was dangerous to himself or others. In light of the Kerman II decision, it was not open to the district court to decide on remand that that right was not clearly established. 80
81 Nor was it permissible for the district court to rule on remand as a matter of law that Crossan was entitled to qualified immunity on the basis that his conduct was objectively reasonable. Objective reasonableness is a mixed question of law and fact when, as here, material historical facts are in dispute. Thus, as discussed above, the district court's ruling that Crossan's conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law was foreclosed by Kerman II unless there was something new in the record on remand in the nature of an undisputed fact [that] conclusively required judgment in favor of Crossan, Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 813 F.2d at 540. We see in the record of the second trial no evidence that was materially different from the evidence before us in Kerman II. 82 Preliminarily, we note that in granting judgment as a matter of law despite Kerman II 's reversal of summary judgment, the district court quoted language in Blissett v. Coughlin, 66 F.3d 531 (2d Cir.1995), that [w]here summary judgment is inappropriate, and the case proceeds to trial, the defense of qualified immunity may be presented to the jury or may be decided by the court in a motion for judgment as a matter of law. 66 F.3d at 538 (citing Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d at 649-50). See Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at . We take this opportunity to clarify the scope and context of the quoted Blissett statement. There are obviously common circumstances to which the Blissett statement is applicable, i.e., cases where summary judgment is inappropriate because the party opposing the motion has adduced evidence sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact to be tried, but where that party's proof as presented at trial falls short of its pretrial promise. In such circumstances, JMOL could become appropriate though summary judgment was not. Blissett did not purport to address the situation in which (a) the court of appeals has decided, prior to trial, that the defendant's qualified immunity defense cannot be decided on summary judgment, and (b) the evidence at trial was substantially the same as that proffered in opposition to summary judgment. Moreover, the district court in Blissett in fact had not decided the merits of the qualified immunity defense at all, but instead had found the defense waived. This Court affirmed that ruling, noting that 83 because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, it is incumbent upon the defendant to plead, and adequately develop, a qualified immunity defense during pretrial proceedings so that the trial court can determine which claims, if any, may be disposed of by summary judgment, or, at least, which facts material to the qualified immunity defense must be presented to the jury to determine its applicability once the case has gone to trial. 84 66 F.3d at 538 (emphases added). In the same vein, in Oliveira v. Mayer, cited by Blissett for the proposition relied on in Kerman III, this Court reversed a grant of judgment as a matter of law, stating that 85 [t]he District Court should have let the jury (a) resolve the[] factual disputes and (b) based on its findings, decide whether it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe that they were acting within the bounds of the law when they detained the plaintiffs. 86 23 F.3d at 650. In short, neither Blissett nor Oliveira allows a district court to grant judgment as a matter of law on essentially the same record on which this Court has ruled that summary judgment is inappropriate because there exist factual issues that must be tried. 87 On this appeal, in an effort to bring the present case within the principle that a reversal of summary judgment in favor of a given party forecloses a grant of judgment as a matter of law to that party on remand unless on remand there is new evidence conclusively requiring judgment in that party's favor, Crossan argues that [t]he facts plaintiff offered at the second trial differed from his prior description of events and conditions (Crossan brief on appeal at 24) with respect to (a) the condition of Kerman's apartment and (b) the officers' obtaining information from Kerman's doctors. These arguments are not supported by the record. 88 As to the supposed difference in the evidence with respect to the condition of Kerman's apartment, Crossan argues that 89 [p]reviously, plaintiff contended that his apartment was, at worst, untidy. Kerman [ II ], 261 F.3d at 241. At the second trial, plaintiff's description of his apartment more closely matched that of the officers. At the second trial, plaintiff said his apartment was messy, very disorganized, with papers and lots of unopened mail all over the table, clothing on the backs of chairs, magazines and newspapers on the floor as well as a large bag of cans ([Tr.504]). This is in addition to there being kitty litter and cat feces all over the foyer ([Tr.122]). The foregoing description of plaintiff's apartment, offered by plaintiff at the most recent trial, does not comport with the descriptive untidy which plaintiff foisted upon this Court. 90 (Crossan brief on appeal at 24-25.) Although Crossan is correct that at the second trial Kerman's testimony included these details as to the condition of his apartment, this was not Kerman's entire testimony, and we cannot view his testimony as materially different from his prior description of the apartment as untidy. As set forth in Part I.D. above, Kerman testified at the second trial that his apartment was merely messy, but not dirty, stating, I kept the kitchen clean. And I kept the bathroom immaculate .... (Tr. 505) And any distinction between untidy and messy is at most a factual shading best left for evaluation by the jury; it surely is not a difference on which hinges the right to judgment as a matter of law. 91 As to Crossan's contention that the evidence at the second trial showed different facts as to the officers' attempts to obtain information from Kerman's doctors, Crossan states as follows: 92 [t]he record, as developed at the second trial, reflects that the officers attempted to reach the psychiatrist plaintiff identified as his doctor but that no one answered at the number plaintiff gave. The record also reflects that at plaintiff's request the officers called the number a second time and left a message ([Tr.127-28]). Later plaintiff gave the paramedic a different name and number of someone who plaintiff purported [ sic ] was his doctor. The paramedic called the number and held a conversation with the alleged doctor. Thereafter, the paramedic held the phone up to the plaintiff so he could speak to the person at the other end. Although, under plaintiff's version of the facts, defendant Crossan hung up the phone while plaintiff was speaking with this second doctor, this allegedly occurred after the trained medical professional conversed with the doctor. The paramedic was apparently satisfied with the information he received as he did not ... call the doctor back ([Tr.133-37]). Under the law existing at the time of the incident, any information the paramedic received can be imputed to defendant Crossan. 93 (Crossan brief on appeal at 25 (emphases added).) Although the district court appears to have credited an argument such as this, implying that Pontrelli received medical information from Dr. Malone, see Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at  (paramedic Pontrelli asked Plaintiff who his psychiatrist was, and spoke to Dr. Malone (citing Tr. 133-35)), the portions of the transcript referred to by the court and Crossan give no indication that Pontrelli had any conversation with Dr. Malone about Kerman's medical condition or history. Crossan has cited us to no evidence in the record sufficient to permit an inference that a conversation of that nature occurred, and our own review of the record persuades us that there is none to be found. According to Kerman, Pontrelli placed the call and, upon reaching Dr. Malone, said simply that Kerman was in custody and that no gun had been found. ( See Tr. 133-34.) Pontrelli then held the phone to Kerman's ear to allow Kerman to speak with Dr. Malone. ( See Tr. 134-35.) Before Kerman had finished speaking with Dr. Malone, Crossan grabbed the phone and hung up. ( See Tr. 136-37; see also id. at 485.) Dr. Malone similarly testified that the paramedic who called him stated that they were the paramedics, that everything was okay. There was no gun, and that Robert wanted to speak to me, and that the paramedic then allowed Kerman to speak to Dr. Malone. (Tr. 651.) Dr. Malone testified that the telephone was hung up in the middle of his ensuing conversation with Kerman. ( See Tr. 652.) Pontrelli himself did not testify that he had any substantive conversation with Dr. Malone. Indeed, Pontrelli did not recall even placing the call. ( See Tr. 579.) Thus, while Crossan argues that Pontrelli was apparently satisfied with the information he received and that the information the paramedic received can be imputed to defendant Crossan (Crossan brief on appeal at 25), there was no evidence that Pontrelli received any medical information whatever from any doctor, and hence no evidence of any such information that could have been relayed or imputed to Crossan. 94 Moreover, Crossan's suggestion that officer Hume's attempt to call Dr. Brozovsky was not known to this Court at the time of Kerman II is unsupportable. Although that fact was not mentioned in the opinion, it was argued in defendants' brief on that appeal. See Kerman v. City of New York, No. 00-9130, Appellees' Brief dated January 31, 2001, 2001 WL 34106425, at  ([Kerman] asked the officers why they did not call his psychiatrist, Dr. Brozovsky. An officer did so, leaving a message when the doctor did not answer the phone....). 95 In sum, the evidence of the officers' efforts — or lack thereof — to obtain information from Kerman's doctors was not significantly different in the second trial. Thus, the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded a ruling by the district court that Crossan's conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. 96
97 In concluding that Crossan's conduct was objectively reasonable, the district court made a number of factual statements that were not findings by the jury and that impermissibly took the evidence in the light most favorable to Crossan, rather than, as required, to Kerman as the party in whose favor the jury found on the seizure and imprisonment claims and as the party against whom judgment was sought as a matter of law. See generally Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 343 (court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law only if it can conclude that, with credibility assessments made against the moving party and all inferences drawn against the moving party, a reasonable juror would have been compelled to accept the view of the moving party). As we have recognized, 98 in most trials, and especially in one where participants are giving their accounts of events occurring rapidly and in a highly charged atmosphere, the jurors [a]re not required to accept the entirety of either side's account, but [a]re free to accept bits of testimony from several witnesses and to make reasonable inferences from whatever testimony they credit[]. 99 Haywood v. Koehler, 78 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.1996). In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law, the court must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. at 151. The district court in Kerman III did not limit its consideration to factual propositions that the jury in this case accepted or would have been compelled to accept. 100 For example, the court suggested that Crossan had directly obtained medical information from one of Kerman's doctors, stating that [t]wo officers testified that they heard Defendant Crossan or another officer on the telephone with a doctor. Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at . Although officer Steve Kaminski said he saw Crossan on the telephone and believed Crossan addressed the person on the other end as Doctor ( see Tr. 401-02), and officer Thomas Loomis said he saw either Crossan or Hume on the telephone and heard the person on the other end addressed as Doc (Tr. 452-53), neither of these officers could give any information whatever as to the substance of such a telephone conversation. Neither of them professed to have heard any questions being asked as to Kerman's medical history or condition. Moreover, even if the court could permissibly have inferred that Crossan had in fact spoken to one of Kerman's psychiatrists on the telephone, there was no evidence from which it could infer that either doctor had communicated to Crossan a belief that Kerman was then dangerous. Dr. Malone testified that Kerman, speaking with him on the telephone until they were cut off, sounded like his normal self, coherent, insightful, and witty. (Tr. 662-63.) And Kerman's hospital record (which the jury specifically asked to review during deliberations, Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at ) showed that Dr. Brozovsky, who was contacted by the hospital no more than 1 ½ hours after Kerman's arrival, stated that Kerman's homicidal ideation is `infin[i]tesimal' and a `minute' risk (Trial Exhibit 1). 101 The jury surely was not required to credit the officers' testimony suggesting that Crossan spoke to a doctor, and their testimony was wholly insufficient to permit any inference as to the content or substance of any such conversation. The court, in crediting the officers' testimony and intimating that Crossan or another officer obtained medical information by speaking with a doctor on the telephone, plainly did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to Kerman, especially given (a) the inability of Crossan to recall speaking to any doctor, (b) the absence of any evidence that Dr. Brozovsky called the apartment, and (c) the testimony of Dr. Malone that he did not speak to a policeman. 102 Nor did the district court view the evidence in the light most favorable to Kerman in finding that Kerman was conducting himself in a manner that was likely to result in serious harm to himself and others. Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at . The court having stated that it would disregard the defense testimony that Kerman was screaming and yelling, was incoherent, and would not calm down, see id., the only supposedly dangerous conduct to which the court pointed was Kerman's refusal to respond to questions or to allow a complete physical examination to be taken by EMS paramedic, Pontrelli, id. at . Yet the record contains evidence that Kerman did not refuse examination by Pontrelli and did not refuse to respond promptly and cogently to important questions. For example, Kerman testified that Pontrelli asked him whether he was taking any medication, and that he responded he was not. Further, when Hume asked Kerman whether he had a doctor, Kerman responded affirmatively and gave Hume Dr. Brozovsky's name and telephone number; and when Hume got no answer and hung up, it was Kerman who thought to have Hume call again and leave a message. In addition, Kerman testified that he allowed Pontrelli to take his pulse. When Pontrelli asked to take his blood pressure, Kerman didn't refuse to allow him. (Tr. 477.) He simply responded, you don't need to take my blood pressure. My blood pressure is one of the healthy things I have. (Tr. 132.) According to Kerman, Pontrelli did not pursue the matter. ( See Tr. 477 (If he had insisted I would have let him. But he didn't insist.).) 103 The court also concluded that Crossan's conduct was reasonable in part because Crossan observed that Kerman was naked. The jury, had it been asked, would not have been compelled to so conclude, given, inter alia, testimony by other officers that when they arrived at the apartment Kerman was wet and wearing a towel ( see, e.g., Tr. 382, 270), as well as Crossan's own testimony (a) that he would not have regarded nakedness in and of itself as an indication that Kerman was dangerous to himself or others, and (b) that he did not recall whether he asked Kerman why he was naked. 104 In addition, the court must have discredited testimony by Kerman when it found that Kerman's apartment was filthy with feces and urine and stunk, Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at , and that  [t]he filthy conditions ... [were] admitted by Plaintiff,  id. at  (emphasis added). Although Kerman indicated that his apartment had been filthy in the past, he testified, as discussed above, that when the officers were there his apartment, though messy, was not dirty, that the kitchen was clean and that the bathroom was immaculate (Tr. 505). In finding that Kerman's apartment was filthy, the court improperly resolved a credibility issue in favor of Crossan; in finding that the condition of the apartment was sufficient to warrant a belief that Kerman posed a danger to himself or others, the court improperly drew inferences adverse to Kerman. 105 The district court also linked its finding that Crossan's conduct in sending Kerman to the hospital was objectively reasonable — and indeed was virtually required — to the New York statute that provides that `any ... police officer... may take into custody any person who appears to be mentally ill and is conducting himself in a manner which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or others.' Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at  (quoting N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41). However, whether a person is conducting himself in a manner that is likely to result in serious harm to himself or others is a question of fact, and the court's instructions to the jury had repeatedly indicated that if the jury found that Kerman posed such a threat, whether overtly or as evidenced circumstantially by behavior, neglect, or refusal to care for himself ( see Tr. 750, 755), it should find that Crossan had probable cause to detain Kerman and hospitalize him. Although the issues of probable cause and qualified immunity are not congruent, in that the latter requires consideration of the reasonableness of the defendant official's perception of the law, see, e.g., Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. at 205-06, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272; Stephenson v. Doe, 332 F.3d at 78-79, most of the factual components here, such as what actions were taken, what information the officers possessed as to Kerman's mental condition, and whether the officers' perceptions of the circumstances were reasonable in light of the information that was available to them, were common to both issues. The jury's finding that Crossan failed to show the existence of probable cause indicated its rejection of the proposition, embraced by the court, that Crossan and his fellow police officers ascertained that Plaintiff... was conducting himself in a manner that was likely to result in serious harm to himself and others, Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at . In light of the jury's interrogatory answers, the court was not free to make this finding. 106 Nor can we uphold the district court's dismissal of Kerman's false imprisonment claims on the basis of the state-law provision granting police officers immunity from damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by [a] person [taken into custody and transported to a hospital] ... unless it is established that such injuries ... [were] caused by gross negligence. N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 9.59. See generally Napolitano v. Flynn, 949 F.2d 617, 620-21 (2d Cir.1991) (entitlement to immunity on state-law claims is a question of state substantive law). Citing Woody v. Astoria General Hospital, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 318, 319, 694 N.Y.S.2d 41, 42 (1st Dep't 1999), for the proposition that gross negligence in § 9.59 means reckless disregard for the plaintiff's rights or intentional wrongdoing, the district court held that Crossan's actions do not rise to the level of gross negligence, i.e. reckless disregard or intentional wrongdoing. Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at . But questions as to whether there was gross negligence, intent, or reckless disregard are questions of fact to be answered by the jury. See, e.g., Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., Inc., 54 N.Y.2d 167, 172-73, 445 N.Y.S.2d 60, 62, 429 N.E.2d 738 (1981) (the existence or nonexistence of gross negligence ... [is] a matter for jury determination.); see also Rand & Paseka Manufacturing Co. v. Holmes Protection, Inc., 130 A.D.2d 429, 431, 515 N.Y.S.2d 468, 470 (1st Dep't 1987) (approving jury charge that gross negligence occurs when a party proceeds in reckless disregard of the consequences of its acts), appeal denied, 70 N.Y.2d 615, 524 N.Y.S.2d 677, 519 N.E.2d 623 (1988). In finding in favor of Crossan on these issues, the district court stated that, [a]s regards acts of reckless or intentional wrongdoing, the jury had found that Kerman failed to prove that Crossan intentionally or recklessly subjected Plaintiff to excess force after he was placed in handcuffs or that Crossan's conduct amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress,  or that Crossan  was motivated ... by Plaintiff's exercise of his free speech rights  in keeping Kerman naked, refusing to allow him to medicate his cat, sending Kerman to the hospital, or sending him to Bellevue rather than a more convenient hospital. Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at  n. 6 (emphases added). Those jury findings, however, while pertinent to Kerman's claims of excessive force and retaliation, did not address the issue of whether Crossan's orders for Kerman's detention and hospitalization were grossly negligent with respect to, or in reckless disregard of, Kerman's right not to be detained or hospitalized without probable cause. As detailed in Part I.E. above, the only questions submitted to the jury on the issue of Crossan's conduct with respect to the claims of unlawful detention and false imprisonment were whether Crossan acted with probable cause. There was no jury finding as to whether Crossan acted with gross negligence as to, or in reckless disregard of, Kerman's right to liberty; and on the evidence taken in the light most favorable to Kerman (including the evidence that after the police search found no gun at Kerman's home, Crossan nonetheless ordered Kerman involuntarily hospitalized without availing himself of the opportunity to discuss Kerman's condition with Kerman's doctors), the jury would not have been compelled to find that Crossan was not reckless or grossly negligent. Thus, the court was not entitled to make that finding. 107 In sum, we agree with Kerman's contentions that the district court's ruling that Crossan was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law was contrary to the law of this case as established in Kerman II. And to the extent that the court's immunity rulings were based on the court's own factual findings that the jury neither made nor would have been compelled to make, the rulings infringed Kerman's Seventh Amendment right to have the facts found by a jury. 108
109 Finally, we note that Kerman has argued that Crossan waived his qualified immunity defense by, inter alia, failing to move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) at trial for judgment as a matter of law and by failing to submit the necessary fact-specific questions to the jury. The district court concluded that Crossan had preserved his qualified immunity defense by, inter alia, pressing that issue during the jury deliberations at the first trial and moving for judgment as a matter of law prior to jury deliberations at the second trial. Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at  n. 7. These two rationales are untenable. The first trial concerned only claims of excessive force and battery; a qualified immunity argument made at that trial could not preserve a defense of qualified immunity to the (already dismissed) claim of unlawful seizure. And while the second trial did involve the reinstated seizure claims, defendants' JMOL motion, which is quoted in its entirety in Part I.E. above, addressed solely the merits of Kerman's claims under the First Amendment. As there was no mention of either qualified immunity or the Fourth Amendment, the JMOL motion did not preserve the defense at issue here. 110 Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, we agree with the district court that Crossan did not waive his qualified immunity defense by failing to make a Rule 50 motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. But we also agree with Kerman that the defense was effectively waived by Crossan's failure to request that the necessary predicate factual questions be submitted to the jury. Rule 50(a) provides as follows: 111 (1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue. 112 (2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment. 113 Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (emphases added). If the court does not grant such a motion during trial, the movant may renew the motion within 10 days after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) 114 These provisions normally mean that a party is not allowed to move for judgment as a matter of law after trial without having made such a motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. See, e.g., McCardle v. Haddad, 131 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir.1997). The purpose of Rule 50's requiring a pre-deliberations motion for JMOL is to alert the opposing party to the supposed deficiencies in his proof, see, e.g., Galdieri-Ambrosini v. National Realty & Development Corp., 136 F.3d 276, 286-87 (2d Cir.1998); Piesco v. Koch, 12 F.3d at 340; Baskin v. Hawley, 807 F.2d 1120, 1134 (2d Cir.1986), thereby affording the nonmoving party an opportunity to cure any deficiency in that party's proof that may have been overlooked until called to the party's attention by a late motion for judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 Advisory Committee Note (1991); see, e.g., Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 432 (2d Cir.2004). 115 However, as indicated by the language of the Rule itself, a prerequisite for the granting of a Rule 50 motion is that there [be] no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for th[e] party against whom judgment as a matter of law is sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1). As discussed in Part II.A.1., the standard for judgment as a matter of law is the same as the standard for summary judgment. Thus, when the court of appeals, on a prior appeal in the same case, has held that the evidence in the record is legally sufficient to prevent summary judgment in favor of a given party, that party is foreclosed from arguing that virtually the same evidence, presented at trial, is not legally sufficient to avoid judgment as a matter of law. 116 Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Rules shall be construed and administered to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. In circumstances such as these, we cannot, consistent with Rule 1, construe Rule 50 to require a pre-deliberations motion for judgment as a matter of law. Such a motion would invite the trial court to commit error, for the motion could not properly be granted in light of the law-of-the-case doctrine; it thus hardly seems just to require that such a motion be made. Further, if the court granted the motion, disregarding the law of the case, a new trial (in this case, Kerman's third trial) would be required — hardly a just, speedy, or inexpensive course. Nor would it be expeditious to require the movant to fashion a conditional pre-deliberations motion for JMOL where there are multiple material factual disputes, for the permutations of possible findings could easily become unwieldy. Here, for example, the disputes pertinent to Crossan's qualified immunity defense included (1) whether Crossan hung up on Dr. Malone, bypassing the opportunity to get a medical opinion on Kerman's condition (2) whether Crossan talked to any doctor, (3) whether Pontrelli had any conversation with Dr. Malone about Kerman's condition, (4) whether Kerman refused to respond to questions, (5) whether Kerman's emotional state exhibited dangerousness, and (6) whether the condition of his apartment suggested dangerousness. A conditional Rule 50 motion hypothesizing favorable (to Crossan) jury answers to one or more of these questions would have entailed analysis of more than a score of possible combinations. 117 We conclude that when the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes the granting of a motion for judgment as a matter of law on a given issue prior to submission of the case to the jury because the appellate court has held, on substantially the same evidentiary record, that as to that issue there are questions of fact that must be resolved by the jury, it would be inappropriate to conclude that a party's failure to make such a motion prior to submission of the case to the jury constituted a waiver of its right to request judgment in its favor after the jury has returned a verdict and has resolved the pertinent factual disputes in its favor. Here, where the record at trial was virtually the same as the record before this Court in Kerman II, see Part II.A.2. above, judgment as a matter of law prior to jury findings of fact was precluded by our decision in Kerman II, and we thus reject the contention that Crossan waived his defense by failing to make a motion for the forbidden relief. 118 This conclusion does not, however, mean that there was not a waiver of a different sort, for Crossan, who had the burden of proving his defense of qualified immunity, failed to ask that the jury be given interrogatories that were sufficiently specific to permit it to resolve the factual disputes that were material to his defense. Although, as discussed in Part II.A. above, the ultimate question of whether a defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity is one for the court, when the relevant factual disputes have been resolved by a jury the court must base its legal ruling on the facts as found by the jury. In Kerman II we observed that a finding that the officers violated the Constitution does not necessarily prevent the application of qualified immunity, 261 F.3d at 240; that [o]nce the outstanding factual questions are answered, the court could decide whether, even if Crossan violated the Fourth Amendment, he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity, id. at 241; and that a jury should decide what transpired between the officers and Kerman, id. 119 At the new trial, however, no precise questions as to the actual events and circumstances were submitted to the jury. As described in Part I.E. above, Crossan pursued his qualified immunity defense simply by requesting that the jury be asked to make a finding as to whether his decision to detain and hospitalize Kerman was supported by probable cause. The district court likewise, in colloquy with counsel, identified the only factual question to be put to the jury on Crossan's qualified immunity defense as whether Crossan had [p]robable cause to send [Kerman] to the hospital. (Tr. 465.) Accordingly, the court gave no other instruction with respect to qualified immunity. 120 The jury was asked, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 49(b), to answer the 17 interrogatories described in Part I.E. above and to return a general verdict (Tr. 765; see also id. at 729, 734). Those interrogatories, which were approved by both sides['] counsel, Kerman III, 2003 WL 328297, at , made no distinction between Crossan's position as to immunity on the seizure and false imprisonment claims and his position as to the merits of those claims. Thus, the interrogatories did not ask, for example, whether Kerman appeared to be mentally unstable, whether his apartment was filthy or merely messy, whether Pontrelli obtained any medical information from Dr. Malone, whether Crossan himself obtained information about Kerman's condition by conversing with a doctor, or whether Crossan hung up on Dr. Malone and thereby knowingly or recklessly bypassed an opportunity to obtain expert information as to whether Kerman posed a danger to himself or others. 121 Although subpart (a) of Rule 49 permits the trial court, in some circumstances, to supply an omitted finding that would complete a jury's verdict, see, e.g., 9 Moore's Federal Practice § 49.11[4], at 49-32 (3d ed.2003), Rule 49(a) does not apply where the jury, in accordance with Rule 49(b), has returned a general verdict, making a finding as to ultimate liability, see, e.g., Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F.3d 33, 56 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1019, 123 S.Ct. 539, 154 L.Ed.2d 427 (2002). Here, having requested and received from the jury a general verdict, and having asked, with respect to the immunity defenses, only whether Crossan had probable cause, the court was not permitted to make findings as to other facts. 122 In the circumstances of this litigation, if the requisite fact questions had been submitted to the jury, and if the jury had answered them favorably to Crossan, the district court would then have had the authority, despite the absence of a Rule 50 motion, to make the ultimate legal determination of whether Crossan was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim, or whether there was privilege on the state-law claims, based on the jury's factual findings. To the extent that a particular finding of fact was essential to an affirmative defense, however, it was incumbent on Crossan to request that the jury be asked the pertinent question. Not having made such a request, Crossan was not entitled to have the court, in lieu of the jury, make the finding. The material factual issues as to Crossan's defenses not having been resolved by the jury, we reverse the district court's ruling that Crossan's decision to detain and hospitalize Kerman was protected by privilege or qualified immunity. 123