United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Alyssa Lloyd worked for a number of years coordinating
appointments for escorts. She asserts that the liaisons that
she arranged were not sexual, but nonetheless, she was caught
up in an undercover sting targeting suspected prostitution in
her workplace. The officers who rushed in to arrest her and
others did not know at first that Ms. Lloyd was a recovering
breast cancer survivor. They did not know when they pushed
her to the ground that her breasts had recently been removed,
and that her surgical breast reconstruction had not healed
and was fragile. Ms. Lloyd says that the officers did know
those facts, however, when they handcuffed her behind her
back, tearing the stitches in her chest. In this case, Ms.
Lloyd brings a claim of excessive force against the officers
who pushed her to the ground and handcuffed her. She also
claims that the officers, and the doctor who later evaluated
her in jail, were indifferent to her medical needs. Because
there are disputed issues of fact regarding the circumstances
of her arrest and the officers' handcuffing of Plaintiff,
the officers' motion for summary judgment for her claims
of excessive force are denied. Ms. Lloyd's constitutional
claims related to deliberate indifference to her medical
needs, however, are dismissed, principally because the
officers offered her treatment after her arrest which she
Lloyd's Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Ms. Alyssa Lloyd, worked “arranging dates” for
women who advertised their services as escorts-booking
appointments by telephone. At the time of the events in this
case, she was in her early 40s. She had arrived at her job as
a liaison between escorts and their customers after a long
path, dropping out of New York University, taking massage
classes, and working for some time as a nanny in Westchester.
Lloyd's life changed in August 2012, when she was
diagnosed with breast cancer. Plaintiff's Response to
Medical Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. No.
111) (“Pl. Med. 56.1”) ¶¶ 88-90. After
her diagnosis in late 2012, Ms. Lloyd was treated with
chemotherapy, which significantly improved her condition.
Id. ¶¶ 91-92. However, in order to treat
her cancer, Ms. Lloyd also decided to undergo a double
mastectomy-surgical removal of both of her breasts.
Id. ¶ 96.
early summer of 2013, with her mastectomy approaching, Ms.
Lloyd began to consult with a plastic surgeon about options
to reconstruct her breasts. On June 6, 2013, Ms. Lloyd met
for the first time with her plastic surgeon, Dr. Cherry
Chang, M.D. Id. ¶¶ 93, 96. After
conferring with Dr. Chang, Ms. Lloyd decided to reconstruct
her breasts immediately after their removal, using
surgically-implanted breast expanders which would be inflated
through injections of saline. Id. ¶¶ 101,
112. Breast implantation, like any surgery, comes with risks.
And Dr. Chang reviewed the risks associated with breast
reconstruction generally, and particularly the issues
associated with breast implants. The risks were significant:
infection, wound healing issues, unfavorable scarring,
asymmetry, implant failure, and the possibility of requiring
future corrective surgery, among others. Id.
¶¶ 103-06. Because Ms. Lloyd would also need
radiation therapy even after the mastectomy, she was at risk
for still further complications. Id. ¶ 107.
Lloyd's breasts were removed during an operation on June
17, 2013. Id. ¶ 108. During the same surgery,
Dr. Chang inserted two tissue expanders and implants into her
breasts-the first of many steps in Plaintiff's breast
reconstruction. Id. ¶ 109. The next
step-inflation of the tissue expanders using saline
injections-began in July 2013 and continued through September
2013. Id. ¶¶ 112-137. Unfortunately, early
in her treatment, Ms. Lloyd began to experience complications
from the procedure. Beginning in early August 2013, Plaintiff
began to complain that saline was leaking from her right
tissue expander. Id. ¶ 114. Dr. Chang reacted
promptly; in a surgical procedure on August 23, he removed
Ms. Lloyd's right implant and exchanged her right tissue
expander. Id. ¶¶ 129-30.
the surgery, Ms. Lloyd was allowed to exercise “a
little.” Plaintiff's Response to City
Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl. City
56.1”) ¶ 218. But the repair proved fragile. In
mid-September, the stitches in Ms. Lloyd's chest ripped
while she was making her bed, doing nothing more than
stretching her arm to spread a comforter. Pl. City 56.1
¶ 219. Sticky, salty fluid that Ms. Lloyd believed to be
saline leaked from the wound, irritating her skin.
Id. ¶ 220.
four weeks after the replacement of her right expander, on
September 17, Plaintiff was back in Dr. Chang's office.
Pl. Med. 56.1 ¶ 138. That very morning, Plaintiff had
noticed some leakage from her right breast incision.
Id. ¶ 139. During her visit, Dr. Chang found
that some of Ms. Lloyd's sutures were coming apart, and,
perhaps, some leakage. Dr. Chang sutured the incision closed.
Id. ¶ 140. He also prescribed Cefadroxil, an
antibiotic. Ms. Lloyd was directed to take two pills of the
medication per day over the course of one week. Id.
problems did not end. Ms. Lloyd returned to Dr. Chang's
office two days later, on September 19, 2013, again reporting
persistent saline leakage. Id. ¶ 144-45. Dr.
Chang decided that an operation was necessary to again
replace Ms. Lloyd's right tissue expander. Id.
¶ 146. He scheduled the surgery to take place four days
later-September 23, 2013. Id. ¶ 149. Ms. Lloyd
would not make it to her surgery that day. Instead, because
of the events that unfolded next, she would be on Rikers
Events of September 20, 2013
James Rufle worked for the New York City Police Department
Vice Major Case Squad. As its name suggests, the squad
targets prostitution and vice-related crimes. In September
2013, Detective Rufle was investigating Ms. Lloyd and the
business where she worked at 408 East 64th Street in
Manhattan. Pl. City. 56.1 ¶¶ 1-2. As described
above, Ms. Lloyd worked as a liaison, connecting men and
women who, occasionally, met at her workplace. The police
suspected that Ms. Lloyd was running a website that was
promoting prostitution. Id. ¶ 3. On September
20, 2013, the police organized a “buy and bust”
tactical operation at Ms. Lloyd's place of work. The team
assembled for the operation included Detective Rufle,
together with Detectives Paul Byrne and David Mills, Sergeant
Gregory Graves, and one undercover officer-known here only by
his codename, UC 137. Id. ¶¶
in the operation, UC 137 called Ms. Lloyd using a number
provided by Detective Rufle. Id. ¶ 11. The
parties dispute whether UC 137 and Plaintiff discussed
exchanging sex for money, or whether they merely discussed a
paid arrangement for non-sexual companionship. It is
undisputed, however, that Ms. Lloyd made an appointment for
UC 137 to meet with a woman in the apartment on East 64th
Street where Ms. Lloyd worked the phones. Id. ¶
time later, UC 137 arrived at the apartment. Ms. Lloyd let
him in. Id. ¶ 14. Soon thereafter, UC 137
signaled to the other members of the field team, likely by
text message, that there was an agreement to exchange sex for
money, although as noted, Plaintiff disputes that she ever
entered into any such an agreement. Id. ¶ 16.
by UC 137's signal, a number of officers entered the
apartment to secure the undercover officer and make their
arrests. How the police entered the apartment, and what they
did upon entry are the subject of material dispute. The
officers take the position that they knocked on the door,
announced that they were police, and made numerous requests
that the tenants of the apartment open the door. Because no
one opened the door voluntarily, the officers forcibly
breached the door using a ram. Id. ¶¶
18-20. As Sergeant Graves testified at his deposition
“whoever was behind the door, refused to open . . . .
We heard movement inside. At that point our undercover's
safety was in question” so he “instructed
Detective Mills” to “breach the door” with
a heavy breaching ram. Deposition of Gregory Graves, annexed
as Ex. C to Jacobs Decl., at 37:24-38:6.
Lloyd, on the other hand, asserts that the ramming began
immediately, at the same time police announced themselves. In
her version of events, Ms. Lloyd told the officers repeatedly
that she would open the door if they would only stop ramming
it. But the officers continued to ram the door until it
broke. Pl. City 56.1 ¶¶ 19-20. Ms. Lloyd's
account is supported by her deposition testimony. There, she
testified that she went to open the door to the apartment,
and that “right before I opened the door, the door
slammed, and they said, this is the police.” Deposition
of Alyssa Lloyd, annexed as Ex. A to Declaration of Elissa B.
Jacobs (Dkt. No. 87) at 141:15-17. “They took the ram
and they smashed the door” but Ms. Lloyd “kept
saying, listen, I'm behind the door, there's not-not
much room, if you want me to open it, you need to stop
slamming the door.” Id. at 141:22-142:2.
as the parties dispute how the officers entered the
apartment, they disagree about what happened
afterward-particularly about where Ms. Lloyd and the
undercover officer were at various times after the named
officers entered the apartment. According to Sergeant Graves,
Ms. Lloyd obstructed him after he entered. Sergeant Graves
testified that after the officers breached the door and
entered the apartment, “we encountered a female who was
in the hallway in close proximity to the front door . . .
.” He “entered further with this female in front
of me and observed in the back more movement of an unknown
person in a back room.” Graves Dep. at
38:16-24. “I was trying to make my way to the . . .
back of the apartment” but the “[f]emale in front
of me would not allow me to pass . . . .” Id.
at 39:12-17. Sergeant Graves claims that he did not know
where UC 137 was after he entered the apartment and was
concerned about his safety, testifying that after his
interaction with Ms. Lloyd, he “continue[d] on to the
back room, at that time [I] did not know the location of the
undercover.” Id. at 39:21-23.
Lloyd says that she knew the location of the undercover. In
her telling, UC 137 was standing near her, in plain sight of
any officer entering: Sergeant Graves must have seen UC 137
when he entered and known that he was safe. Pl. City 56.1
¶ 22. She testified as much at her deposition. She said
that throughout the time officers were slamming on the door,
UC 137 was “standing by the door, watching me . . .
Yelling at the people.” Lloyd Dep. at 142:7-10. She has
also submitted an affidavit stating that “UC 137 was
standing near to me in plain sight of any officer entering
the apartment” and that “Sergeant Graves must
have seen UC 137 on entry to the apartment and known UC 137
was safe. Indeed, Sergeant Graves rushed past UC 137 to reach
me.” Affidavit of Alyssa Lloyd (Dkt. No. 102)
(“Lloyd Aff.”) ¶¶ 7, 9.
Lloyd disputes Sergeant Graves' contention that she
obstructed him as the officers entered the apartment. Much to
the contrary, she asserts in her response to the City
Defendants' 56.1 statement, she “had stepped back
and to the side, into the kitchen area beyond the hallway,
before the officers entered the apartment.” Pl. City
56.1 ¶ 23. And in her deposition, Ms. Lloyd testified
that when officers opened the door “I stepped away in
the little hallway and my-they smashed the door.” Lloyd
Dep. at 142:11-14. Previous testimony by Ms. Lloyd pursuant
to New York General Municipal Law § 50-H was consistent:
When police were attempting to enter the apartment, she
“stood in the kitchen with my hands up and waited for
them to open the door” and that she “stayed in
the kitchen area, hallway area, with my hands up waiting for
them to open the door with the battering ram;” she
“didn't want to be next to the door in case they
hit me with it.” 50-H Hearing, annexed as Ex. Q to
Declaration of Ana Maria Vizzo (Dkt. No. 91), at 29:9-22;
see also Lloyd Aff. ¶ 6.
undisputed, however, that after Sergeant Graves entered the
apartment he pushed Ms. Lloyd's right arm. As a result,
she fell to the ground, where she remained for approximately
one minute. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Ms. Lloyd
asserts that the push injured her; it “caused a further
rip in the stitches on the right side of my chest,
aggravating the saline leakage from my right expander, which,
in turn, further irritated my skin.” Lloyd Aff. ¶
she was pushed down, Plaintiff told the officers repeatedly
that she had cancer. She even showed them the bandaged area
around her chest. Pl. City 56.1 ¶ 31. Now, for the first
time, Sergeant Graves was aware of Ms. Lloyd's breast
cancer diagnosis. Id. ¶ 32. Once the officers
saw Ms. Lloyd's condition, they helped her up and put her
on a bed. Id. ¶ 33. She was then placed under
arrest. Ms. Lloyd did not know it yet, but she had been
arrested for promotion of prostitution-a felony. Id.
Lloyd was then handcuffed by an unidentified officer.
Id. ¶ 35. The officers were now aware of her
medical condition. As a result, rather than using one set of
handcuffs to cuff her hands behind her back, the officers
used at least two sets of handcuffs. The parties refer to
that practice as “double cuffing, ” and the Court
will adopt the term. Id. ¶ 36. The Court
presumes that double cuffing allows an officer to link two
sets of handcuffs in series, creating more space between an
arrestee's hands, and reducing the strain on her chest
and shoulders when her arms are pulled behind her back.
Whatever its palliative effect, from Ms. Lloyd's
perspective, double cuffing was not enough. She protested
even double cuffing behind her back because of her medical
condition, and asked that the officers handcuff her in front
with single handcuffs. Id. ¶¶ 235-36. Ms.
Lloyd asserts that the rear double cuffing caused stitches on
the right side of her chest to rip further, aggravating the
saline leakage from her right expander and further irritating
her skin. Id. ¶ 237.
transported Ms. Lloyd to the 19th Precinct station house.
There, the rear handcuffs were removed, and she was secured
by one wrist to a bench. Id. ¶ 44. Ms.
Lloyd's purse was also brought to the 19th Precinct. It
contained antibiotics and dressing changes to treat her
chest. Id. ¶ 242. While waiting on the bench,
Ms. Lloyd asked several officers if she could take her
medication, and also asked too if she could change her
bandages. Id. ¶ 45. The officers told Plaintiff
to wait for her arresting officers. Id. ¶ 46.
her wait on the bench, officers again placed Ms. Lloyd in
handcuffs, then escorted her to the station's squad room
to be interviewed. Id. ¶ 48. Two of her
arresting officers, Detective Mills and Detective Rufle, met
Ms. Lloyd inside the squad room. Detective Rufle removed Ms.
Lloyd's handcuffs “because she had an
injury.” Id. ¶¶ 49-50. Ms. Lloyd
asked Detective Rufle to let her take her medication.
Detective Rufle told Ms. Lloyd that he was unable to
administer medicine because he was not a doctor. Id.
undisputed that the detective also told her, however, that
she could go to the hospital to have her medication
administered. Id. ¶ 52. It is also undisputed
that Ms. Lloyd elected to continue being processed in her
criminal proceeding, rather than go to the hospital to have
her medication administered. Check Id. ¶ 55.
But Ms. Lloyd asserts that she decided not to go to the
hospital because she was told by the officers that a trip to
the hospital would delay her criminal processing and her
release from jail. As Ms. Lloyd asserts in an affidavit,
Detective Rufle told her a trip to the hospital would
“delay my arraignment and release on my own
recognizance on a misdemeanor charge, in time to make my
surgery.” Lloyd Aff. ¶ 21; accord
Lloyd Dep. at 161:7-9; 162:8-13.
that she would be released on her own recognizance on a
misdemeanor charge in time to make her scheduled surgery, Ms.
Lloyd declined to visit the hospital and opted to continue
with processing. Id. ¶ 55. She even signed a
medical treatment of prisoner form, indicating her refusal to
obtain medical treatment and go to the hospital, although
Plaintiff again asserts that she did so in reliance on
officers' false assurances that she would be released on
her own recognizance on a misdemeanor charge in time to make
her scheduled surgery. Id. ¶ 56.
point during her time in the 19th Precinct, Ms. Lloyd
explained to Detectives Rufle and Mills that she needed to
change the dressing on her chest to stave off and limit
infection. Id. ¶ 247. In response, Detective
Mills allowed Plaintiff to use the restroom to “address
something with her chest.” Ms. Lloyd replaced dressing
on her chest, now soaked with saline, with sanitary napkins
she found in the restroom. Id. ¶ 249. An
officer also “snuck” her an antibiotic from her
purse. Id. ¶ 246.
the evening of September 20, 2013, Ms. Lloyd was again placed
in rear double cuffs for transport from the 19th Precinct to
Central Booking. Id. ¶ 61. Ms. Lloyd remained
in rear double cuffs for three to five hours during the trip
to Central Booking, and while she stood in line there.
Id. ¶ 252. She complained repeatedly to
Detectives Byrne and Mills about pain and discomfort from the
handcuffs. But they ignored her complaints. Id.
parties dispute whether Ms. Lloyd received treatment during
her stop at Central Booking. The officers assert that Ms.
Lloyd was seen by EMS at Central Booking and refused to be
treated. Id. ¶ 64. Ms. Lloyd rejects that
version of events, and states in her affidavit that
“[h]ad someone from EMS seen me, he or she would have
removed the sanitary napkins from my chest and replaced them
with a proper dressing.” Lloyd Aff. ¶ 31. Ms.
Lloyd asserts that the intake officer at Central Booking
“refused to take” her because she had an open
wound on her chest, telling Detectives Byrne and Mills that
she needed to go to a hospital. Pl. City 56.1 ¶ 254.
Instead, the detectives brought Ms. Lloyd to the 7th
Precinct, to be held overnight until her arraignment.
Id. ¶¶ 65, 255.
September 21, 2013, Ms. Lloyd was arraigned in New York City
Criminal Court on charges of promoting prostitution in the
third degree, a felony, and permitting prostitution, a
misdemeanor. Id. ¶ 257. The presiding judge set
bail at $10, 000 bond or $5, 000 cash. Pl. Med. 56.1 ¶
156. The Court presumes that Ms. Lloyd was unable to meet
those requirements for release, because later that day, she
was transported again-this time to Rikers Island.
was transferred to Rikers Island in the evening of September
21, 2013. Pl. Med. Id. ¶ 157. Early the next
morning, a nurse evaluated Ms. Lloyd, taking her vitals and
administering a series of tests. Id. ¶ 158.
Later, Ms. Lloyd was seen by Dr. Mohammad Alam, M.D., who
performed a “new admission” examination.
Id. ¶ 160. Dr. Alam documented Ms. Lloyd's
preexisting medical conditions and treatment, in particular
her breast cancer diagnosis, chemotherapy, mastectomy, and
reconstructive surgery. Id. ¶¶ 161-62. Ms.
Lloyd told Dr. Alam that she was taking oral antibiotics and
required daily dressing changes. She also told the doctor
that she had a follow-up procedure scheduled with Dr. Chang
the following day. Id. ¶¶ 163-64.
parties dispute whether Dr. Alam examined Plaintiff's
breasts. Id. ¶¶ 168-69. Dr. Alam cites to
a portion of his deposition where he testified, when asked if
Plaintiff “at any point pull[ed] up her shirt to show
you what was underneath” that “I opened it and I
looked at what is there.” Deposition of Mohammed Alam,
M.D. (annexed as Ex. T to Vizzo Decl.) at 38:9-13. He also
cites to his physical examination notes which reflect that he
recorded that Ms. Lloyd had a suture in place on her right
breast with redness around the tape site, and mild discharge
on the dressing. Vizzo Decl., Ex. E at 9. On the other hand,
Ms. Lloyd maintains that she lifted her shirt to show Dr.
Alam “the sanitary napkins covering my chest, which by
now were not only saline-soaked but also pus-filled”
but that “Dr. Alam did not examine my chest.”
Affidavit of Alyssa Lloyd (Dkt. No. 107) (“Lloyd Aff.
2”) ¶¶ 17, 19.
Lloyd maintains that she “asked Dr. Alam for
antibiotics and a dressing change immediately,
” but he did not do so, and that she did not
“hear Dr. Alam ask or instruct” anyone to provide
her with the same. Lloyd Aff. 2 ¶¶ 20-22 (emphasis
added). But it is undisputed that during his examination and
thereafter, Dr. Alam took a number of steps to provide future
treatment for Ms. Lloyd. Dr. Alam made referrals to Plastic
Surgery and Oncology at Elmhurst Hospital. Pl. Med. 56.1
¶ 174. He directed that Plaintiff's dressings be
changed daily for seven days. He prescribed a number of
additional medications and treatments: hydrocortisone cream
for dermatitis of the right breast to be applied twice daily,
and Librium as a replacement for Diazepam, which Plaintiff
had been taking outside of jail for muscle spasms under her
breasts. Id. ¶ 175. Dr. Alam realized that the
antibiotic she had been taking prior to her arrest was not
available in the facility's pharmacy. Id. ¶
171. He prescribed a “STAT” dose of Keflex as an
alternative antibiotic. Id. ¶ 172. Ms. Lloyd
does not dispute these facts, but points out that Dr. Alam
did not electronically sign his notes until 3:46 p.m., which
was several hours after he physically examined her. Vizzo
Decl., Ex. E at 12.
had no further contact with Dr. Alam. Pl. Med. 56.1 ¶
176. Records indicate that Dr. Henry Thurka, M.D., another
doctor at the facility, changed Plaintiff's antibiotic
from Keflex to Augmentin shortly after Dr. Alam's
consultation because Keflex was not available in the
facility's pharmacy. Id. ¶ 177-178. There
is a dispute regarding whether Ms. Lloyd received her
antibiotic on September 22. Records from Pyxis, a medication
dispensing system, state that a dose of Augmentin was
distributed to Plaintiff at 10:12 p.m. on September 22, 2013.
Id. ¶ 179. However, Plaintiff maintains that
she never received antibiotics at Rikers on Sunday, September
22, 2013. Lloyd Aff. 2 ¶ 27. It is undisputed, however,
that Ms. Lloyd received medical treatment, including the
dressing changes ordered by Dr. Alam, wound care, and
antibiotics, on a daily basis throughout the rest of her
period of detention on Rikers Island. Id.
Release from Rikers Island
Lloyd was released from Rikers Island on September 26, 2013,
six days after her arrest, and three days after her
originally scheduled surgery date. Id. ¶ 193.
Five days after her release, on October 1, 2013, Ms. Lloyd
returned to Dr. Chang's office. Id. ¶ 194.
Dr. Chang's notes documented the reason Ms. Lloyd had
missed her operation as “due to sudden death of
relative.” Id. Dr. Chang examined Ms. Lloyd
and found that her surgical incision wound was in
“breakdown” and noted drainage in her right
breast. Id. ¶ 195. During that visit, Dr. Chang
deflated Ms. Lloyd's right tissue expander. Id.
¶ 197. But she needed additional surgery. On October 3,
3013, Ms. Lloyd went to New York Hospital Queens for a
procedure to remove her right tissue expander and explore the
reconstruction of her right breast. Id. ¶ 198.
During the operation, Ms. Lloyd's right breast was found
to be infected, requiring that it be washed out with fluid
and removal of the tissue expander. Id. ¶ 200.
Lloyd did not immediately pursue additional reconstructive
surgery, in part because she was to commence radiation
therapy. From December 2013 to May 2014, she received
radiation treatment. Id. ¶ 208. Since
completing radiation, Dr. Chang has recommended that Ms.
Lloyd reconstruct her right breast using tissue from other
parts of her body. Id. ¶ 211. But as of May 31,
2016, Ms. Lloyd had not yet undertaken additional
reconstruction surgery. Id. ¶ 213.
amended complaint in this matter was filed on May 14, 2015.
Dkt. No. 15. On August 8, 2016, the parties entered into a
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, pursuant to which
Plaintiff withdrew a number of claims asserted in the amended
complaint, namely: false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and under New York law, malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and under New York law, violation of the right to
a fair trial under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs under New York law,
negligent screening, hiring and retention under New York law,
and negligent training and supervision under New York law.
Dkt. No. 85.
also withdrew a number of claims to the extent they were
asserted against Corizon Health, Inc. and Dr. Alam, and
withdrew her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act against all Defendants except the City
of New York. Id. Finally, Plaintiff dismissed the
following named defendants from this case: Achille Antoine,
Yvette Avery-Hughes, Adrian Campos, Dominique Georges,
Shalonda Gonzalez, Rachelle Hogans-Blair, Bernadette James,
Cynthia Lallemand, Raquel Murphy, Esperance Ndayishimiye,
Annie Panis, Lisa Polite, Sean Ryan, Undercover Officer C146,
and Scott Velasquez. Id.
remaining Defendants are the City of New York, Sergeant
Gregory Graves, UC 137, Detectives James Rufle, Paul Byrne,
and David Mills, Corizon Health, Inc. and Dr. Mohammad Alam.
The remaining claims against the City Defendants are:
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, excessive force under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, failure to intervene under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act of
1973, assault and battery under New York law,
respondeatsuperior liability under New