Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brisman v. Volpe

United States District Court, N.D. New York

August 3, 2018

JASON BRISMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT VOLPE, et al., Defendants.

          PHILLIPS LYTE LLP ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

          PHILLIPS LYTE LLP ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

          OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

          LUKE B. KALAMAS, ESQ., MARC H. GOLDBERG, ESQ., MICHAEL G. MCCARTIN, AAG MATTHEW P. REED, AAG OF COUNSEL

          DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION

          Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge

         On April 17, 2015, Plaintiff Jason Brisman, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, commenced this action in the Northern District of New York, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims arising out of his confinement at Auburn Correctional Facility. See Dkt. No. 1.[1] After initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, numerous claims and Defendants were dismissed. See Dkt. No. 9. However, Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Volpe, Travis, Reilly, Schell, Kirkwood, and Lupo were found sufficient to survive initial review. See Id. On February 9, 2018, Magistrate Judge Dancks issued an Order and Report-Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Defendants Kirkwood and Reily's motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 63. On March 20, 2018, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks' Order and Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 64.

         Currently before the Court are the parties' motions in limine.

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Court refers the parties to Magistrate Judge Dancks' February 9, 2018 Order and Report-Recommendation denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment for a complete recitation of the relevant facts. See Dkt. No. 64.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Motions in limine

         The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984); see also Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996). A court should exclude evidence on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., No. 94 Civ. 5220, 1998 WL 665138, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998). Courts considering a motion in limine may reserve decision until trial so that the motion is placed in the appropriate factual context. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co. Group, 937 F.Supp. 276, 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Alternatively, the court is "free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling" at trial as "the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was contained in the [movant's] proffer." Luce, 469 U.S. at 41-42.

         In their motion in limine Defendants seek a ruling with respect to the admissibility of Plaintiff's First Degree Robbery conviction for impeachment purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A). See Dkt. No. 85 at 2. Plaintiff has opposed this motion. See Dkt. No. 96. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks a ruling on the following issues: (1) that the prejudicial effects of introducing any evidence of Plaintiff's convictions substantially outweigh any probative value; (2) that Defendants should be precluded from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's prison disciplinary history; and (3) that Plaintiff should be permitted to wear civilian clothing and not be required to wear shackles or restraints at trial. See Dkt. No. 92 at 1. Defendants oppose this motion only with respect to the admissibility of Plaintiff's First Degree Robbery conviction for impeachment purposes. See Dkt. No. 95.

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.