Tardif v. City of New York

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 · Evidence

344 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceexpert testimonyRule 702DaubertPTSD diagnosiscausation opiniondifferential diagnosishelpfulness

Facts

Mary Tardif alleged that during Occupy Wall Street protests in March and April 2012, NYPD officers assaulted her and later denied her proper medical care while she was in custody. After summary judgment and reconsideration, surviving claims included a federal excessive-force claim against Sergeant McManus, federal deliberate-indifference and unconstitutional-confinement claims against Officers Rumble and Schmidt, a state assault and battery claim against McManus, and disputed state respondeat superior claims against the City. Tardif sought to hold the City vicariously liable for alleged assaults by John Does #8 and #9 on March 21, 2012, and by Lieutenant Destefano and Officer Aminova on April 16, 2012, even though some individual claims had been dismissed or never pleaded against those officers. The parties also disputed the admissibility of expert psychiatric testimony from Dr. Robert Goldman for Tardif and Dr. Steven Fayer for Defendants.

Issue

Whether Tardif could proceed to trial on state-law respondeat superior claims against the City based on conduct by officers who were unidentified, not individually sued, or no longer subject to surviving federal claims, and whether the court had supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. Also, whether the parties' psychiatric experts satisfied Rule 702 and Daubert as to qualification, reliability, and helpfulness.

Rule

A state-law respondeat superior claim against a municipality may proceed if the pleadings and litigation record fairly show the plaintiff's intent to pursue vicarious liability for underlying state tortious conduct, even when the individual employee is unidentified, sued as John Doe, not named as a defendant, or no longer subject to an individual claim for procedural reasons. Supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) when the state and federal claims arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact, and once that relationship is shown, jurisdiction is mandatory unless a § 1367(c) exception applies. Under Rule 702 and Daubert, expert testimony must come from a qualified expert, be based on reliable methods reliably applied, and assist the trier of fact; diagnosis may be admissible while causation may be excluded if the expert fails to address obvious alternative causes.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a street festival in Seattle, Nina Flores alleges that an on-duty city transit officer shoved her into a barricade, causing a shoulder injury. Nina sued the city for state-law battery on a respondeat superior theory, but the individual officer was originally listed only as "Officer Doe" and was later dismissed because discovery closed before his identity was learned.

Can the city still be held vicariously liable on the battery claim?

Explanation. A municipality may still face a state-law respondeat superior claim even when the individual tortfeasor was sued as a John Doe and later dismissed for failure to identify him. The key point is that the dismissal was procedural, not a substantive determination that no underlying tort occurred. The majority opinion treated that distinction as critical.