Pilgrim: I’ll sue.
One morning a cop raced to respond to a domestic violence incident on Hemlock Road in upper Westville. He broke down the door to what proved to be the wrong residence— and unwittingly touched off an ongoing dispute between the city and the home’s owner.
When he successfully gained entry into the house, he did not find any evidence of a domestic dispute. Or any people.
With no one home, and no information about whom to contact, the officer left behind a handwritten note. It read: “Door was broken in error due to wrong location called in responding [to] a domestic dispute. The city will pay for repairs which [sic] documented under this case #.” The officer left his phone number and name.
Westville’s top cop, Sergeant Renee Dominguez. attributed the incident, which occurred last November, to a communications mix-up: Someone had called 911 about an incident in West Haven, not New Haven. (West Haven has a Hemlock Street.)
Pilgrim’s house, with doors.
The owners of the house, Caleb and Everil Pilgrim, have not lived in the house since May 2014, though they have owned it for about 20 years. The Pilgrims now live outside Atlanta; a niece has been staying at the Westville home while the house is on the market for sale.
The niece thought the house had been burglarized until she discovered the officer’s note.
When Caleb Pilgrim learned what had happened, he did as the officer said he should. He contacted the city and filed a claim. He said it cost him $1,540.98, including materials and labor, to replace the door. He sought total reimbursement for assorted costs as well as $6,540.98 for the 21 days he had to take his house off the market.
The city denied his claim.
“The reason for this denial is on the basis that it arises a set of facts in which the City of New Haven personnel that were involved, were acting in the exercise of judgement and/or discretion and responding to a rapidly unfolding situation,” Pamela Popolizio, paralegal for the Investigative Property Damage Claim Division of the Office of the Corporation Counsel, wrote to Pilgrim in a Dec. 19, 2014 letter. “The personnel were acting reasonably considering the circumstance then and there existing and the information that they were given.”
Popolizio went on to write that city and its agents were immune from liability: “The decision is final and the file for this matter is being closed.”
Pilgrim said he was stunned, and he reached out to the police department, corporation counsel and Mayor Toni Harp’s office to no avail.
“Their response is most outrageous,” he said. “What this means is that the city can break into one’s home, and then will not honor any promise to pay after its agents promise to pay for their wrongdoing. It’s scandalous.”
Asked for a response, interim Corporation Counsel John Rose Jr. said “the city has said all that it is going to say to him on that point.” Rose refused to answer any questions about how the city arrived at it’s decision of immunity beyond stating that the city had conducted its investigation and declined to pay the claim.
When asked why the officer would suggest that a resident could receive restitution for an error made by a city agent, Rose said: “A police officer is not a lawyer.”
Richard Furlow Photo
Rose was asked about another Upper Westville incident, in which a 92-year-old woman had a tree fall partially on her home after the city had ignored pleas to take it down. She too expected that the city would pay for any repairs to her property.
The city hasn’t yet decided if it will.
Rose said that if the tree is a city tree, the city is ultimately responsible if it falls on someone’s property. But even in that instance, once a claim is filled, Rose said, an inspector would go out and determine what happened and what if any damages might be related to that tree. He said if the city is found to be at fault, it will pay the claim. If the person disagrees with the city’s assessment, the person can bring a lawsuit.
Pilgrim, who is an attorney, said if the city intends to claim immunity, he is prepared to sue the city for the reasonable costs of replacing the doors, including all materials, painting and labor.
Yes. Of course the city should pay for damages it creates whether or not it's an accident. No; a phantom loss projection of taking a house off market should not be part of this.