Jordan Neely’s Father Files Civil Suit Against Daniel Penny Amid Pending Criminal Trial Verdict
The lawsuit against Penny alleges recklessness and seeks damages beyond the limits that any court below the state supreme court could award.
Donte Mills of the law firm Mills & Edwards filed the complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Dec. 5, opting for this higher jurisdiction as the lawsuit demands damages exceeding what lower courts could provide.
The complaint grants Penny a period of 20 days to respond, or up to 30 days in total, warning him of a potential default judgment if he fails to comply.
Neely, a homeless man struggling with mental illness, died on May 1, 2023, after Penny placed him in a headlock and subdued him on an uptown F train.
Penny’s trial for charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide began with jury selection at the end of October and is now nearing conclusion, with the jury entering a third day of deliberation following the closing arguments from both the defense and the prosecution earlier in the week.
Witnesses have uniformly stated that the confrontation started when Neely boarded the train at the Second Avenue station, expressing his hunger, homelessness, and indifference to returning to prison.
Related Stories
Several witnesses further recounted that the event instilled a greater fear for their safety than anything they had previously encountered while using the subway.
The complaint fails to recount the specifics of the events leading to the confrontation between Neely and Penny or to justify Penny’s potential concerns for passenger safety on the subway.
It alleges that Neely “was negligently contacted by the defendant, Daniel Penny,” leading to injuries and ultimately his death. The claim also attributes blame to “the negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of the defendant.”
While the lawsuit does not disclose a specific amount for damages, it asserts a claim “against the defendant in an amount that exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts in the state of New York which would otherwise have jurisdiction over this matter.”
A verdict in the trial is anticipated soon, although there are expectations of a possible hung jury.
On Dec. 5, the jury returned to the courtroom where two individuals read a lengthy segment of the defense’s cross-examination of medical examiner Dr. Cynthia Harris, who had testified last month that Neely’s death resulted from asphyxiation linked to Penny’s chokehold.
The excerpts read in court focused heavily on discussions Harris had with other medical professionals regarding the identification of Neely’s cause of death post-autopsy.
Throughout the inquiry, Harris addressed whether she possessed adequate grounds to attribute Neely’s death to asphyxiation and whether she had considered factors such as Neely’s schizophrenia, sickle cell trait, and daily smoking habits.
Deliberations were briefly halted on Dec. 4, as both the judge and the prosecution struggled to locate a specific portion of the transcript that the jury had requested.
The judge then requested the jury to rephrase its inquiry, resulting in Thursday’s reenactment and reading from the cross-examination.
Since commencing their deliberations on Dec. 3, the jury has also asked to revisit segments of cellphone footage recorded at the scene and footage from Penny’s police interview afterward, as well as seeking clarification on the judge’s instructions regarding justifiable force.
As of publication time, neither Mills nor Penny’s attorneys had responded to requests for comment.
