Advocacy & Safety - NY bicyclist sues NYPD for $1.5 million

You've seen the YouTube video. NYPD officer Patrick Pogan intentionally knocks bicyclist Christopher Long off his bicycle. Then Pogan files arrests Long and he spends 2 days in jail. After a video of the incident appears on YouTube, Long is released and Pogan is arrested for assault and filing a false police report. Now Long is suing the NYPD for $1.5 million.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/07/2009-07-07_cyclist_seeks_15m_from_city_for_body_slam.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

This one will never make it near trial.

This one will never make it near trial.

Yeah they will settle quick. It pretty much is a slam dunk. Of course when they go for 1.5 mil they will prolly be happy to settle for a quarter of that. Glad to see they fired the cop.

Moving to A&S...

$1.5Mill? Nah, our system isn't broken...

Good for him. I remember that and living NYC we hear of stuff like this a lot more than we should, so I hope this helps put a crack down on the police.

Good for him.

1/4 of $1.5 mil? $375,000? Yeah, I'd probably settle for that... considering that the offending cop was fired.

First, I think the case might go to trial if the prosecution wants more than money (i.e., to "promote advocacy," or whatever). Second, a jury might grant more than can be won in settlement. Third, I wonder (I have no audio, at the moment) if the bicyclist did anything "wrong"? Not that anything justifies the officer's behavior, but, did the biker shout an obscenity or something? Anyway, being "fired" is certainly not enough: the cop ought to be imprisoned for assault (anyone else would/should be, right?) He should also have to pay a hefty fine out-of-pocket (though I doubt he will).

The cop if facing multiple criminal charges, including felonies over this incident.
The assault is one thing, but the more serious charges are false arrest and lying in a sworn police report.
Without the video, the bicyclist could have been sentenced to serious jail time.
His written criminal report made no claims about verbal provocation by the bicyclist.

You've seen the YouTube video. NYPD officer Patrick Pogan intentionally knocks bicyclist Christopher Long off his bicycle. Then Pogan files arrests Long and he spends 2 days in jail. After a video of the incident appears on YouTube, Long is released and Pogan is arrested for assault and filing a false police report. Now Long is suing the NYPD for $1.5 million.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/07/2009-07-07_cyclist_seeks_15m_from_city_for_body_slam.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

From the posted video it looks as if there was a fair amount of space between the cop the bike, and doesn't appear that anything derogatory was said to the cop. It looks as if the cop just "bum rushed" the bicycle.

I remember hearing that initially the cop had said the cyclist was being verbally abusive to some of the pedestrians before Pogan knocked him off. Since the (former) officer's believability is out of the window and there's no evidence that did happen I think it's safe to say this is an open and shut case. Pogan deserved to be fired and now face charges because it was an unprovoked attack and to make matters worse he filed a false report that could have had serious effects on the cyclists life. Police officers like Pogan have no business being in a department charged with the security of citizens.

$1.5Mill? Nah, our system isn't broken...

Sadly it takes that much, and more for the victim to get a decent award. As the lawyer's are going to take a large chunk as fees. And punishment should hurt, especially in a case like this where it is law enforcement screwing up.

There should be a set fees paid to lawyer's instead of a percentage of the award. That way we wouldn't need to see victims having to sue for "absurd" sums of money.

Moving to A&S...

Out of curiosity, where was it originally?

I remember hearing that initially the cop had said the cyclist was being verbally abusive to some of the pedestrians before Pogan knocked him off. Since the (former) officer's believability is out of the window and there's no evidence that did happen I think it's safe to say this is an open and shut case. Pogan deserved to be fired and now face charges because it was an unprovoked attack and to make matters worse he filed a false report that could have had serious effects on the cyclists life. Police officers like Pogan have no business being in a department charged with the security of citizens.

According to the article linked to in the post, Christopher Long has suffered ill effects on his life in general as he no longer resides in NYC.

I remember hearing that initially the cop had said the cyclist was being verbally abusive to some of the pedestrians before Pogan knocked him off. Since the (former) officer's believability is out of the window and there's no evidence that did happen I think it's safe to say this is an open and shut case. Pogan deserved to be fired and now face charges because it was an unprovoked attack and to make matters worse he filed a false report that could have had serious effects on the cyclists life. Police officers like Pogan have no business being in a department charged with the security of citizens.

I remember the police report indicating that the cyclist faced his bike directly at the officer and that the officer was defending himself. Nothing about verbal abuse.

The cop if facing multiple criminal charges, including felonies over this incident.
The assault is one thing, but the more serious charges are false arrest and lying in a sworn police report.
Without the video, the bicyclist could have been sentenced to serious jail time.
His written criminal report made no claims about verbal provocation by the bicyclist.

Pogan's partner watched him take out the cyclist and supported the arrest. He should be punished along with Pogan.

Here is a copy of the police officer's sworn criminal complaint against the bicyclist:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0729081bike1.html

And here is some fair and unbiased commentary from Keith Olbermann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsJstdZEJh0

According to the New York Daily News, Patrick Pogan faces 4 years in jail if convicted on the felony false police report charge. I believe that this case has not yet gone to trial.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/12/17/2008-12-17_indicted_bikeslam_cop_faces_tour_de_pris.html

Pogan's partner watched him take out the cyclist and supported the arrest. He should be punished along with Pogan.

It's not going to happen.

Cops always stick together and defend goons like Pogan.

And then they wonder why they don't get more respect.

Sadly, if it hadn't been for the video, Pogan would have gotten away with assault, lying on a police report and false arrest. It happens every day.

The good thing is that now all kinds of people have video cameras and police excesses are getting caught more often. Cops are even getting caught by the cameras in their own patrol cars - LOL (on the flip side, good cops are being vindicated by those same cameras).

Pogan should do jail time.

But I doubt he will.

=JRA;9236647

Pogan should do serious jail time.

But I doubt he will.

fixed

There should be a set fees paid to lawyer's instead of a percentage of the award. That way we wouldn't need to see victims having to sue for "absurd" sums of money.

Then tough cases, but legitimate cases, would never see the light of day. They would be too much trouble to try for a set fee.

Plus then the good lawyers would not fool with these cases at all, you'd be stuck with the online law school grads.

There should be a set fees paid to lawyer's instead of a percentage of the award. That way we wouldn't need to see victims having to sue for "absurd" sums of money.

If this is filed as a civil rights case (and I suspect it is), the prevailing party will be entitled to attorney's fees on top of whatever judgment the plaintiff receives. I.e., the lawyer's fee doesn't come out of the award.

Then tough cases, but legitimate cases, would never see the light of day. They would be too much trouble to try for a set fee.

Plus then the good lawyers would not fool with these cases at all, you'd be stuck with the online law school grads.

Sure they would, but rather than billing for a percentage of the outcome, the lawyers would just bill for straight time @ $1000 an hour.

If there were no other method of payment, then even the "good lawyers" would work for "scale."

The problem is that indeed our system encourages large award sums, and lawyers then tend to slide toward those sorts of cases that yield large award sums.

Sounds like he's in it for the money. If he was just looking for justice, the cop getting fired was it. Did he bend a rim or scratch his elbow...gimme a break, it's all about the money!

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Plus then the good lawyers would not fool with these cases at all, you'd be stuck with the online law school grads.

Maybe BF Brand Lawyer Wanna-bees could fill the gap with their free legal "advice", interpretations, judgements, and recitations of legal code cut and pasted from the Internet.

I'm surprised that's all he is sueing for!!!!!!

Sounds like he's in it for the money. If he was just looking for justice, the cop getting fired was it. Did he bend a rim or scratch his elbow...gimme a break, it's all about the money!

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Really? If not for that video, his life would be significantly damaged having committed no crime. Pogan and the officer by him would suffer nothing. "Firing" Pogan is not justice. He, and the officer who corroborated his story, ought to be fired and do jail-time, and the police department ought to be made to pay a large sum. Maybe we could call that justice for this inexcusable situation.

Then tough cases, but legitimate cases, would never see the light of day. They would be too much trouble to try for a set fee.

Plus then the good lawyers would not fool with these cases at all, you'd be stuck with the online law school grads.

How so? Other services have set fees and they aren't hampered by them, why should lawyer's/lawsuits be any different?

How do you know? Research can and should be charged a fixed fee based on the hours it takes.

Sounds like he's in it for the money. If he was just looking for justice, the cop getting fired was it. Did he bend a rim or scratch his elbow...gimme a break, it's all about the money!

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

He was the victim of a vicious assault, it doesn't matter if the attacker was a cop or not. He was assaulted and as such is entitled to his day in court. Plus according to one of the articles published on the case because of mental anguish suffered he no longer lives in NYC.

Sadly it takes that much, and more for the victim to get a decent award. As the lawyer's are going to take a large chunk as fees. And punishment should hurt, especially in a case like this where it is law enforcement screwing up.

There should be a set fees paid to lawyer's instead of a percentage of the award. That way we wouldn't need to see victims having to sue for "absurd" sums of money.

Unlike in the case of an auto accident for example, the amount of a suit like this isn't calibrated to what is decent or fair to the victim. In fact, it shouldn't be. It's calibrated for what will make the offending party sit up, take notice and correct their behavior. An amount "fair" to the victim might be less than 50k. That amount is pocket change to the NYC PD. A couple million dollar suit here and there and the public will get fed up fast and demand change. And that's the real point of a suit like this.

Same thing with big corporations. It does no good to sue for amounts that they'll just figure into the "cost of doing business".

Also, this may be a very low paying case for the lawyers. If the plaintiff has some money, it wouldn't even be on a contingency basis, where the 25-40% fees come in. Any half decent lawyer could win this one, so he might have gotten lawyers who would do it for little or no money just for the publicity.

How so? Other services have set fees and they aren't hampered by them, why should lawyer's/lawsuits be any different?

How do you know? Research can and should be charged a fixed fee based on the hours it takes.

That's a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless most lawyers do have set fees for research. But then there's investigators, depositions, expert witnesses, etc. If you have the money to pay upfront, you could pay on the basis of fee + expenses. People who can do that are as rare as people who can self-insure for their health care.

If people could only be charged fixed fees, only rich people could afford their day in court. With contingency fees, you don't pay if you don't win. If a case costs $25,000 in fees and expenses to bring to trial, how many people could afford to take the chance? With your arrangement, nobody would bring legitimate cases to court because they couldn't afford to risk losing, even if the odds were in their favor. Also, that 30% fee a lawyer gets for one case helps offset the loss he took on another case.

Sounds like he's in it for the money. If he was just looking for justice, the cop getting fired was it. Did he bend a rim or scratch his elbow...gimme a break, it's all about the money!

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Wrong. Cases like this need to be brought for huge amounts to get the attention of the city and the PD higher ups. The PD administrators need to have the heat brought on them to straighten out their cops. If only the cop gets punished, there's no incentive to do that. Nothing get's a police chief's attention faster than a mayor sticking a headline in his face about how the city's on the hook for a couple million because he let one of this thugs run roughshod over a citizen.

Frankly, if I were the citizen, I'd be suing for at least 3 to 5 million, even if I had to donate it to charity. Lunch money doesn't get the attention of the PD like it should.

IIRC, the cyclist was from New Jersey, not New York.
Sorry, don't mean to be a nit-picker, just that the error was in the title.

That's a gross oversimplification. Nonetheless most lawyers do have set fees for research. But then there's investigators, depositions, expert witnesses, etc. If you have the money to pay upfront, you could pay on the basis of fee + expenses. People who can do that are as rare as people who can self-insure for their health care.

If people could only be charged fixed fees, only rich people could afford their day in court. With contingency fees, you don't pay if you don't win. If a case costs $25,000 in fees and expenses to bring to trial, how many people could afford to take the chance? With your arrangement, nobody would bring legitimate cases to court because they couldn't afford to risk losing, even if the odds were in their favor. Also, that 30% fee a lawyer gets for one case helps offset the loss he took on another case.

How do you figure that only rich people would be able to afford their day in court? There are plenty of services that one is charged a flat rate for and EVERYONE can afford them.

Why should a client with a 60% or better chance of winning an award in his/her case have to "suffer" and pay for the case that the lawyer lost?

name a service similar to the one provided by lawyers that charges a flat rate that "everyone" can afford. Remember that "everyone" includes the homeless, people below the poverty line, unemployed, etc.

"Why should a client with a 60% or better chance of winning an award in his/her case have to "suffer" and pay for the case that the lawyer lost?"

the client doesn't have to. he can go hire a lawyer that charges a flat/hourly rate that he finds suitable. Of course, then he'll have to take on the risk himself of losing and will still have to pay the $20,000+ if he does.

Here's a question for you, why should the lawyer take on case for someone at a flat rate if they won't be able to pay them if the case loses? You think any lawyer in the world will assume the full risk of a lawsuit without some extra money for doing so? You think there are any lawyers out there that would look at a person making the minimum wage at walmart and a couple hundred thousand dollars in medical bills and say "sure, i'll take your case, and you can pay me that $20,000+ when you get the chance."

name a service similar to the one provided by lawyers that charges a flat rate that "everyone" can afford. Remember that "everyone" includes the homeless, people below the poverty line, unemployed, etc.

"Why should a client with a 60% or better chance of winning an award in his/her case have to "suffer" and pay for the case that the lawyer lost?"

the client doesn't have to. he can go hire a lawyer that charges a flat/hourly rate that he finds suitable. Of course, then he'll have to take on the risk himself of losing and will still have to pay the $20,000+ if he does.

Here's a question for you, why should the lawyer take on case for someone at a flat rate if they won't be able to pay them if the case loses? You think any lawyer in the world will assume the full risk of a lawsuit without some extra money for doing so? You think there are any lawyers out there that would look at a person making the minimum wage at walmart and a couple hundred thousand dollars in medical bills and say "sure, i'll take your case, and you can pay me that $20,000+ when you get the chance."

Health care, granted some people do have a problem in paying their bills, but insurance or not ability to pay one's bills or not one is not denied health care.

Two words Pro Bono.

Plus let's not forget that it is the LOSER of a case that pays the legal fees. . .

health care? you're kidding, right? it's not "some people" that have a problem paying their medical bills or covering an insurance payment. Oh, and you're wrong, people can be denied health care unless they go to an emergency room.

"two words[:] Pro Bono"

you're answer to the problems of our legal system is to ask the portion of our population that donates the most amount of their time compared to all other professions (lawyers) to donate all of their time, or even more of it? I wonder how i'll pay my student loans ... ahh, maybe in your world the bank will just forgive them. maybe the landlord will let me stay rent-free as well ... and the grocery store wouldn't mind giving me the food right?

In any case, how exactly would you force one of the more overworked professions to take on more clients for free? Nothing like adding work/stress to a group that leads the nation in suicide and alcoholism.

"Plus let's not forget that it is the LOSER of a case that pays the legal fees. . ."

Outside of Alaska and Florida, this is just wrong. Certainly their are some cases in the other 48 where the loser pays the other sides legal fees, but for the vast majority, each side is responsible for their own fees. Besides, wouldn't that deter more people from suing? If you had to adopt even more risk for the losing case ...

I have to agree with the opinions of some others. The city will probably offer an out-of-court settlement. I doubt this will alter the thinking of the NYPD. My usual question: Who is giving the NYPD their orders? (to be nasty to cyclists.)

health care? you're kidding, right? it's not "some people" that have a problem paying their medical bills or covering an insurance payment. Oh, and you're wrong, people can be denied health care unless they go to an emergency room.

Which more and more people are doing everyday.


"two words[:] Pro Bono"

you're answer to the problems of our legal system is to ask the portion of our population that donates the most amount of their time compared to all other professions (lawyers) to donate all of their time, or even more of it? I wonder how i'll pay my student loans ... ahh, maybe in your world the bank will just forgive them. maybe the landlord will let me stay rent-free as well ... and the grocery store wouldn't mind giving me the food right?

"Donates the most amount of their time..." Not all of their time, but I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that all lawyers are suppose to do a certain amount of pro bono work on a yearly basis anyway.


In any case, how exactly would you force one of the more overworked professions to take on more clients for free? Nothing like adding work/stress to a group that leads the nation in suicide and alcoholism.

"Plus let's not forget that it is the LOSER of a case that pays the legal fees. . ."

Outside of Alaska and Florida, this is just wrong. Certainly their are some cases in the other 48 where the loser pays the other sides legal fees, but for the vast majority, each side is responsible for their own fees. Besides, wouldn't that deter more people from suing? If you had to adopt even more risk for the losing case ...

Why should it deter someone IF they were bringing a good faith case? It might help to weed out some of the "Hey I just ****ed out, fell so I'm going to sue the store or whomever" cases And how many of those cases are brought about by lawyers who tell their clients that "Hey you've got a good case here, I think I can win it for you."

Which more and more people are doing everyday.

"Donates the most amount of their time..." Not all of their time, but I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that all lawyers are suppose to do a certain amount of pro bono work on a yearly basis anyway.

Why should it deter someone IF they were bringing a good faith case? It might help to weed out some of the "Hey I just ****ed out, fell so I'm going to sue the store or whomever" cases And how many of those cases are brought about by lawyers who tell their clients that "Hey you've got a good case here, I think I can win it for you."

can they still lose a "good faith case"? (the answer is yes)

can they still lose a "good faith case"? (the answer is yes)

Yes, that is true, there is always the chance of losing any case. But don't you think that it would cut down on those cases that are not good faith and are brought about just because someone feels slighted and wants to sue someone?

Cops always stick together and defend goons like Pogan.

And then they wonder why they don't get more respect.

and judges and lawmakers are on the same team as well. this sort of thing has been seen in new york before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident).