NEW YORK -- A judge sided with Madison Square Garden in its lengthy legal battle with Charles Oakley on Friday, saying that the former New York Knicks All-Star had not proved he was assaulted when he was removed from a game he attended in 2017.
Oakley was handcuffed and arrested after an altercation with security while sitting near owner James Dolan during a game against the Los Angeles Clippers. Oakley initially brought several claims against MSG that were dismissed in February 2020. After appeal, Oakley's assault-and-battery claim remained.
But Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Southern District of New York ruled that Oakley "has produced no evidence to support his claim that he was assaulted by MSG security guards."
MSG had pointed to video evidence and previous testimony that Oakley was not assaulted.
"For more than nine years, Mr. Oakley's lawyers have pursued claims they knew were false. Those claims have now been dismissed by the Court in their entirety -- for the third time," MSG said in a statement. "We are pursuing legal action against Douglas Wigdor, and his unscrupulous law firm, to hold them accountable for years of frivolous litigation and their blatant abuse of the judicial system."
Oakley was a beloved Knicks forward in the 1990s, and he remains one of the few former players who has remained absent from MSG during the team's recent playoff runs, culminating with this year's NBA championship.
His removal from the game was a jarring scene, but Sullivan ruled that Oakley hadn't proved it was done with excessive force.
"Ample evidence -- including videos from multiple angles and the unanimous testimony of every witness (even, to some extent, Oakley himself) -- shows that Oakley had a reasonable opportunity to depart the Garden, that he instead resorted to physical violence, and that he was never pushed to the ground," Sullivan wrote.
The judge added that "no rational jury could conclude that Oakley reasonably feared himself at risk of wrongful physical contact -- let alone that MSG intended to stir such an apprehension."
Wigdor still hopes a jury will get a chance to rule.
"We are disappointed with the Court's rulings," he wrote in an email. "We believe there are conflicting accounts and only a jury can decide what exactly happened. We are hopeful that the Second Circuit will agree for a third time and remand the case for an immediate jury trial."