Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 110

AMENDED ANSWER to 103 Amended Complaint,,,,,,, with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), The City Of New York. (Publicker, Suzanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------x
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO,
Tax Id. 873220, Individually and in his Official Capacity, ASSISTANT
CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH GERALD
NELSON, Tax Id. 912370, Individually and in his Official Capacity,
DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id. 895117,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, CAPTAIN THEORDORE
LAUTERBORN, Tax Id. 897840, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, LIEUTENANT JOSEPH GOUGH, Tax Id. 919124,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, SGT. FREDERICK
SAWYER, Shield No. 2576, Individually and in his Official Capacity,
SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN, Shield No. 2483, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART,
Tax Id. 915354, Individually and in his Official Capacity, LT.
TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax Id. No. 885374, Individually and in his
Official Capacity, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004,
Individually and in her Official Capacity, SERGEANT RICHARD
WALL, Shield No. 3099, Individually and in his Official Capacity,
SERGEANT ROBERT W. O’HARE, Tax Id. 916960, Individually and
in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT SONDRA WILSON, Shield No.
5172, Individually and in her Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT
THOMAS HANLEY, Tax Id. 879761, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINOR Tax Id. 899922,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #150, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe
being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown) (collectively
referred to as “City Defendants”), FDNY LIEUTENANT ELISE
HANLON, individually and in her official capacity as a lieutenant with
the New York City Fire Department, JAMAICA HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ISAK ISAKOV, Individually and in his
Official Capacity, DR. LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, Individually
and in his Official Capacity and JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER EMPLOYEE’S “JOHN DOE” # 1-50, Individually and in
their Official Capacity (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true
names are presently unknown),
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------x

CITY
DEFENDANTS’
AMENDED
ANSWER TO THE
SECOND
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
10-CV-6005 (RWS)
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

Defendants, CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO,
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH GERALD NELSON,
CAPTAIN THEORDORE LAUTERBORN, SGT. FREDERICK SAWYER, SERGEANT
KURT

DUNCAN,

LIEUTENANT

CHRISTOPHER

BROSCHART,

LT.

TIMOTHY

CAUGHEY, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, (collectively referred to as “City defendants”),
by their attorney, MICHAEL A. CARDOZO, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, as
and for its answer to the Second Amended Complaint, respectfully allege as follows:1
1.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraphs “1” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit that plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein.
2.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraphs “2” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit that plaintiff purports to set forth a basis for the action.
3.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “3” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit that plaintiff purports to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court as
stated therein.
4.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “4” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit that plaintiff purports to base venue as stated therein.
5.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “5” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein.
6.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “6” of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admit that plaintiff self-identifies as a Caucasian male and as a citizen of the United States.
1

According to a review of the Civil Docket Sheet, Lieutenant William Gough, Sergeant Richard Wall, Sergeant
Robert W. O’Hare, Sergeant Sondra Wilson, Lieutenant Thomas Hanley, and Captain Timothy Trainor have not yet
been served with process, and are therefore not parties to this action. According to an affidavit of service filed by
plaintiff on or about October 17, 2012, Lieutenant Elise Hanlon was served with process on or about October 11,
2012, and thus her answer is not due until on or about November 1, 2012. See Docket Sheet Entry No. 108.
-2-

7.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “7” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that the City of New York (“City”) is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
8.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “8” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) is an
agency of the City of New York and respectfully refer the Court to New York City
Administrative Code §14-101 et. seq. for a complete and accurate statement of the powers and
duties of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”).
9.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “9” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief,

that DEPUTY CHIEF

MICHAEL MARINO, ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH
GERALD NELSON,

DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO,

CAPTAIN

THEORDORE LAUTERBORN, LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM GOUGH, SGT. FREDERICK SAWYER, SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN,
LIEUTENANT

CHRISTOPHER

BROSCHART,

SERGEANT

SHANTEL

JAMES,

SERGEANT RICHARD WALL, SERGEANT ROBERT W. O’HARE, SERGEANT SONDRA
WILSON, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, and CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINOR are
duly sworn police officers; however, defendants state that the remainder of the paragraph
constitutes legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response thereto is
required.
10.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “10” of the Second Amended

Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response is
required.

-3-

11.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “11” of the Second Amended

Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response is
required.
12.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “12” of the Second Amended

Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response is
required.
13.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “13” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit, upon information and belief, that Lieutenant Elise Hanlon is
a duly sworn lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”), however,
defendants state that the remainder of the paragraph constitutes legal conclusions rather than
averments of fact, and as such, no response thereto is required.
14.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “14” of the Second

Amended Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no
response is required.
15.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “15” of the Second Amended

Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response is
required.
16.

The allegations set forth in paragraph “16” of the Second Amended

Complaint constitute legal conclusions rather than averments of fact, and as such, no response is
required.
17.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “17” of the Second Amended Complaint.

-4-

18.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “18” of the Second Amended Complaint.
19.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “19” of the Second Amended Complaint.
20.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “20” of the Second Amended Complaint.
21.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “21” of the Second Amended Complaint.
22.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “22” of the Second Amended Complaint.
23.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “23” of the Second Amended Complaint.
24.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “24” of the Second Amended Complaint.
25.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Exemplary Career. . . ” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
26.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “25” of the

Second Amended Complaint except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was
appointed as probationary police officer with the New York City Police Department on or about
July 1, 2002.

-5-

27.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “26” of the

Second Amended Complaint except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff is a United
States Navy veteran.
28.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “27” of the

Second Amended Complaint except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff served in
the United States Navy from 1993 to 1997.
29.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “28” of the Second Amended Complaint.
30.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “29” of the Second Amended Complaint except
admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was honorably discharged from the United
States Navy.
31.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “30” of the Second Amended Complaint except
admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff joined the NYPD in July 2002.
32.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “31” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff began
working at the 81st Precinct in or about July 2003, where he remained until October 31, 2009.
33.

Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations set forth in

Paragraph “32” of the Second Amended Complaint.
34.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “33” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was a
patrol officer generally assigned to the 4:00p.m. to 12:00p.m. tour at the 81st Precinct.

-6-

35.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “34” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
36.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “35” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received two
commendations for his work as a police officer.
37.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “36” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief,

that plaintiff received a

“Meritorious Police Duty” award.
38.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “37” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received an
“Excellent Police Duty” award.
39.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Witnesses Enforcement . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
40.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “38” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
41.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “39” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
42.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “40” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
43.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “41” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

-7-

44.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “42” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
45.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “43” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
46.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “44” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
47.

Deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to

what was allegedly said by an unidentified Sergeant as set forth in Paragraph “45” of the Second
Amended Complaint.
48.

Deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to

what was allegedly said by an unidentified Sergeant as set forth in Paragraph “46” of the Second
Amended Complaint.
49.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Officers Were Being Instructed . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
50.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “47” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
51.

Deny as the allegations set forth in Paragraph “48” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
52.

Deny as the allegations set forth in Paragraph “49” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
53.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “50” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

-8-

54.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “NYPD Policy Making Officials . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
55.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “51” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
56.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “52” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that three-star Chief Michael Scagnelli was the former Chief
of Transportation for the NYPD.
57.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “53” of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admit, upon information and belief, that Lieutenant Delafuente was previously assigned to the
81st Precinct.
58.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Refuses to Comply . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
59.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “50” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
60.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “51” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
61.

Deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “56” of the Second Amended Complaint.
62.

Deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “57” of the Second Amended Complaint.

-9-

63.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Receives a Poor Evaluation . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
64.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “58” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received a poor
performance evaluation in or around 2008.
65.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “59” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received an
overall rating of 2.5 and respectfully refer the Court to plaintiff’s Performance Evaluation for the
rating period 12/15/2007 to 12/15/2008 for a complete and accurate statement of the evaluation
of plaintiff’s performance.
66.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “60” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to plaintiff’s Performance Evaluation for
the rating period 12/15/2007 to 12/15/2008 for a complete and accurate statement of the
evaluation of plaintiff’s performance.
67.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “61” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to plaintiff’s Performance Evaluation for
the rating period 12/15/2007 to 12/15/2008 for a complete and accurate statement of the
evaluation of plaintiff’s performance.
68.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “62” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 10 -

69.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Challenges His Low Work Evaluation . . .” as set forth in the Second
Amended Complaint.
70.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “63” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff informed his
supervisors of his intention to appeal his performance evaluation.
71.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “64” of the Second Amended Complaint.
72.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “65” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that Sergeant Meyer is a Squad
Sergeant at the 81st Precinct, and further, deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the content of any conversation Sergeant Meyer had with plaintiff about his activity
level.
73.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “66” of the Second Amended Complaint.
74.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “67” of the Second Amended Complaint.
75.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Attempt to . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
76.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “68” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff met with
supervisors at the 81st Precinct in order to discuss his performance evaluation.

- 11 -

77.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “69” of the Second

Amended Complaint. except admit, upon information and belief, plaintiff met with supervisors at
the 81st Precinct in order to discuss his performance evaluation.
78.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “70” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
79.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “71” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
80.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “72” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
81.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “73 of the Second

Amended Complaint.
82.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “74 of the

Second Amended Complaint regarding plaintiff’s “sum and substance” allegations.
83.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “75” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
84.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “76” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
85.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “The NYPD’s Quota Policy . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
86.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “77” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the determination.

- 12 -

87.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “78” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the determination.
88.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “79” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the evidence presented.
89.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “80” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the evidence presented.
90.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “81” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the evidence presented.
91.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “82” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the evidence presented.
92.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “83” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the evidence presented.
93.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “84” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City of New
York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the arbitrator’s determination.

- 13 -

94.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “85” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that Michael Marino is the
Deputy Chief of Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, which is where the 81st Precinct is located.
95.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “86” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
96.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “87” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
97.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Refuses to Drop . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
98.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “88” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
99.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “89” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff pursued the appeal
of his evaluation.
100.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “90” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that a letter was sent by
plaintiff’s counsel and respectfully refer the Court to the writing for a true and accurate statement
of its contents.
101.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Refusal to Drop . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
102.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “91” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 14 -

103.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “92” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff failed to document
in his memo book that he had left his post, and further, deny knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to whether plaintiff was issued a reprimand.
104.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “93” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that Lt. Caughey reviewed
plaintiff’s memo book on or about October 31, 2009.
105.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “94” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff contacted Captain
Lauterborn.
106.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “95” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff requested that the
fact that Lt. Caughey took plaintiff’s memo book be reported.
107.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “96” of the Second

Amended Complaint regarding plaintiff’s “sum and substance” allegations, except admit, upon
information and belief, that due to his poor performance, Captain Lauterborn told plaintiff he
would be subject to more supervision.
108.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “97” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
109.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “98” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, Captain Lauterborn told
plaintiff he would be subject to more supervision.

- 15 -

110.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “99” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was placed on
Performance Monitoring in or about October 2009 and respectfully refer the Court to the NYPD
Patrol Guide for details regarding Performance Monitoring.
111.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “100” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
112.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “101” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
113.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “102” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
114.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “103” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
115.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Attempt to Isolate . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
116.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “104” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
117.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “105” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
118.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Escalate Their . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.

- 16 -

119.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “106” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what
plaintiff allegedly heard from P.O Zucker.

120.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “107” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
121.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “108” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
122.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “109” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was referred to
NYPD psychiatrist Dr. Catherine Lamstein in or about April 2009 by NYPD police surgeon Dr.
Joseph Cuffio.
123.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “110” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff disclosed to Dr.
Lamstein that, among other complaints, he was having some work problems.
124.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “111” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was required to
surrender his gun and shield after disclosing matters related to his health to Dr. Lamstein.
125.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Appeal is Suddenly . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
126.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “112” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 17 -

127.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “113” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
128.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “114” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
129.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “115” of the Second Amended Complaint.
130.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Attempt to Further Isolate . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
131.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “116” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was reassigned to
the telephone switchboard as a result of being placed on Restricted Duty.
132.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “117” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
133.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “118” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
134.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “119” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that during his assignment to
the telephone switchboard plaintiff processed arrest paperwork.
135.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Reports the Corruption . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.

- 18 -

136.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “120” of the Second Amended Complaint.
137.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “121” of the Second Amended Complaint.
138.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “122” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff contacted IAB by
filing an Unusual Incident Report (UF-49) involving Lt. Caughey.
139.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “123” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff made allegations
in a report entitled “Corruption Involving the Integrity Control Program of the 81st Precinct” and
respectfully refer the Court to the report for a true and accurate statement of its contents.
140.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “124” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff’s report was sent
to Chief Charles V. Campisi, Chief of the Internal Affairs Bureau.
141.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Superiors Become Aware . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
142.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “125” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
143.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “126” of the Second Amended Complaint.
144.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “127” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 19 -

145.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Reveals Rampant. . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
146.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “128” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff met with the
Quality Assurance Division (“QAD”) in or about October 2009.
147.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “129” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff met with the
Quality Assurance Division (“QAD”) in or about October 2009 to discuss certain allegations.
148.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “130” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
149.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “131” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
150.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “132” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was placed on
Performance Monitoring on or about October 14, 2009.
151.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “133” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
152.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “134” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was interviewed
by members of “Group 1” of the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”).
153.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “135” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 20 -

154.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Continue to Pursue . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
155.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “136” of the Second Amended Complaint.
156.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “137” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
157.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “138” of the Second Amended Complaint.
158.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “On October 31, 2009 . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
159.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “139” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that Lt. Caughey reviewed
plaintiff’s memo book on or about October 31, 2009.
160.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “140” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that Lt. Caughey made copies
of the notes contained in plaintiff’s memo book.
161.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “141” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
162.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “142” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
163.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Leaves Work . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.

- 21 -

164.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “143” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what
plaintiff was allegedly advised of by P.A.A. Boston.
165.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “144” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
reasons why plaintiff sought to leave work before the end of his tour.
166.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “145” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
167.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “146” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that after plaintiff left the
precinct without permission he was ordered back to the precinct.
168.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “147” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff contacted IAB on
or about October 31, 2009.
169.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “148” of the Second Amended Complaint.
170.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “149” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief,

that plaintiff received a

voicemail from Dr. Lamstein on or about October 31, 2009.
171.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “The NYPD Threatens a City Wide Search . . .” as set forth in the Second
Amended Complaint.

- 22 -

172.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “150” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that when plaintiff failed to
respond to any of the inquiries made by the NYPD to locate him defendant Lauterborn contacted
plaintiff’s father to ascertain plaintiff’s whereabouts.
173.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “151” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that during a telephone call on
or about October 31, 2009, Larry Schoolcraft informed Captain Lauterborn that he had spoken to
plaintiff.
174.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “152” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
175.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Unlawfully Enter . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
176.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “153” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Marino and Deputy Inspector Steven Mauriello
entered plaintiff’s home on or about October 31, 2009.
177.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “154” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that members of the Emergency Service Unit entered
plaintiff’s apartment on or about October 31, 2009.
178.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “155” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that members of the NYPD
entered plaintiff’s home and asked plaintiff to return to the 81st Precinct. Further, defendants
respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff on or about October 31,

- 23 -

2009, for an accurate account of the interaction between plaintiff and City Defendants on or
about October 31, 2009.
179.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “156” of the Second

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff
on or about October 31, 2009, for an accurate account of the interaction between plaintiff and
City Defendants on or about October 31, 2009.
180.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “157” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff was suspended from duty on or about October
31, 2009.
181.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “158” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff
on or about October 31, 2009, for an accurate account of the interaction between plaintiff and
City Defendants on or about October 31, 2009.
182.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Threaten to Treat . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
183.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “159” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
184.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “160” of the Second

Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff
on or about October 31, 2009, for an accurate account of the interaction between plaintiff and
City Defendants on or about October 31, 2009.

- 24 -

185.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “161” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that after initially agreeing to be receive medical treatment at
a hospital, plaintiff thereafter refused medical treatment and refused to leave his home.
186.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “162” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff was taken into protective custody and
respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff on or about October 31,
2009, for an accurate account of the interaction between plaintiff and City Defendants on or
about October 31, 2009.
187.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “163” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
188.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “164” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
189.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “165” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
190.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “166” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
191.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff is Violently Attacked . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
192.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “167” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Sgt. Duncan handcuffed plaintiff.
193.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “168” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 25 -

194.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “169” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that, following a frisk of plaintiff, a digital recorder was
found on plaintiff and respectfully refer the Court to digital tape recordings made by plaintiff on
or about October 31, 2009, for an accurate account of events.
195.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “170” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
196.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Conduct an Illegal Search . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
197.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “171” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
198.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “172” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
199.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “173” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to what plaintiff’s landlord allegedly claimed to have observed.
200.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “174” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff was placed in restraints and carried from his
home, and deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether this occurred
in full view of friends and neighbors.
201.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Make Blatantly False . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.

- 26 -

202.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “175” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff was transported to Jamaica Hospital on or about
October 31, 2009.
203.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “176” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
204.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “177” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff’s landlord provided keys to City Defendants to
enter plaintiff’s apartment and admit that City Defendants thought plaintiff may have been
suicidal.
205.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “178” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
206.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “179” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
207.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “180” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
208.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff is Handcuffed . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
209.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “181” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit plaintiff was handcuffed for a period of time at Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center (“JHMC”) on or about October 31, 2009.
210.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “182” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 27 -

211.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “183” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff was restrained with handcuffs while atJHMC.
212.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Spends Three . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
213.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “184” of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was confined to the emergency room of the
psychiatric ward at JHMC on or about October 31, 2009 until November 2, 2009.
214.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “185” of the Second Amended Complaint.
215.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “186” of the Second Amended Complaint.
216.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “187” of the Second Amended Complaint.
217.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “188” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
218.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “189” of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was admitted into the psychiatric ward at
JHMC on or about November 2, 2009.
219.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “190” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 28 -

220.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “191” of the Second Amended Complaint.
221.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “192” of the Second Amended Complaint.
222.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “193” of the Second Amended Complaint.
223.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Involuntary Commitment . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
224.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “194” of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admit, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was confined to a psychiatric ward in JHMC
from on or about October 31, 2009 until November 6, 2009.
225.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “195” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
226.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations that there was no medical basis for detaining plaintiff as set forth in
Paragraph “196” of the Second Amended Complaint.
227.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “197” of the Second Amended Complaint and
respectfully refer the Court to plaintiff’s hospital records for a true and accurate account of their
contents.

- 29 -

228.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “198” of the Second Amended Complaint and
respectfully refer the Court to plaintiff’s hospital records for a true and accurate account of their
content.
229.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “199” of the Second Amended Complaint.
230.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “200” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
231.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “201” of the Second Amended Complaint.
232.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “202” of the Second Amended Complaint.
233.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “203” of the Second Amended Complaint.
234.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “204” of the Second Amended Complaint.
235.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “205” of the Second Amended Complaint.
236.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “206” of the Second Amended Complaint.
237.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “207” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 30 -

238.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “The NYPD’s Crucial Role . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
239.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “208” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
240.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “209” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
241.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “210” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
242.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “211” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
243.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “212” of the Second Amended Complaint.
244.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “213” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
245.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “214” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
246.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants’ Egregious Conduct . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
247.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “215” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 31 -

248.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “216” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that members of the NYPD visited attempted to contact
plaintiff at his home in upstate New York.
249.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “217” of the Second

Amended Complaint except admit that members of the NYPD attempted to contact plaintiff at
his home in upstate New York.
250.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “218” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
251.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “219” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to
what plaintiff did with his bed.
252.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “220” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
253.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff’s Allegations of Corruption . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
254.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “221” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that the Quality Assurance Division (“QAD”) submitted a
report to the Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives following an investigation that was
initiated following receipt of allegations made by plaintiff.
255.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “222” of the Second

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the QAD Report for a true and accurate
recitation of its contents.

- 32 -

256.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “223” of the Second

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the QAD Report for a true and accurate
recitation of its contents.
257.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “224” of the Second

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the QAD Report for a true and accurate
recitation of its contents.
258.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants’ Pattern of Misconduct . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
259.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “225” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
260.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “226” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that certain City Defendants have been the subject of NYPD
investigations.
261.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendant Marino’s . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
262.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “227” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Michael Marino was the subject of an investigation
involving the use of anabolic steroids and a human growth hormone.
263.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “228” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that investigators executed a search warrant at a pharmacy in
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

- 33 -

264.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “229” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit the steroid prescriptions were found for members of the
NYPD, including Chief Marino.
265.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “230” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
266.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “231” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Marino was the subject of an investigation
involving the use of anabolic steroids and a human growth hormone.
267.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “232” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Marino’s authority or duty has not been modified
as a result of the investigation.
268.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendant Nelson’s . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
269.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “233” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Gerald Nelson was the subject of a NYPD
investigation.
270.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “234” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that the investigation involved an incident that occurred
while Chief Nelson was the Chief of the School Safety Division on or about February 25, 2005.
271.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “235” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
272.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “236” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 34 -

273.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “237” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
274.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “238” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Nelson was promoted to the position of
Commanding Officer of Patrol Borough Brooklyn North sometime after February 25, 2005.
275.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “239” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that there was an internal affairs investigation in 2008
concerning Chief Nelson.
276.

Deny knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “240” of the Second Amended Complaint.
277.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “241” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
278.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “242” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
279.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “243” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
280.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “244” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
281.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “245” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
282.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “246” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that Nelson’s authority or duty was not modified as a result
of the investigation.

- 35 -

283.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendant Mauriello’s . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
284.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “247” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit defendant Mauriello was the subject of an internal affairs
investigation.
285.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “248” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit defendant Mauriello was the subject of an internal affairs
investigation.
286.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “249” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit defendant Mauriello was the subject of an internal affairs
investigation.
287.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “250” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
288.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “251” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that two officers assigned to the 81st Precinct were indicted in
an unrelated matter.
289.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “252” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
290.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “253” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
291.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “254” of the Second

Amended Complaint.

- 36 -

292.

In response to paragraph “255” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “254”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
293.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “256” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
294.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “257” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
295.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “258” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
296.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “259” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
297.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “260” of the Second

Amended Complaint.
298.

In response to paragraph “261” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “260”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
299.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “262” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
300.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “263” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
301.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “264” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 37 -

302.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “265” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
303.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “266” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
304.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “267” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit, upon information and belief, that QAD and IAB
investigated certain allegations made by plaintiff.
305.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “268” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit that the Quality Assurance Division (“QAD”)
submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner of Strategic Initiatives following an investigation
that was initiated following receipt of certain allegations made by plaintiff.
306.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “269” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
307.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “270” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
308.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “271” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
309.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “272” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
310.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “273” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
311.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “274” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 38 -

312.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “275” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
313.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “276” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
314.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “277” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
315.

In response to paragraph “278” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “277”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
316.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “279” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
317.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “280” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
318.

In response to paragraph “281” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “280”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
319.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “282” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
320.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “283” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
321.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “284” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 39 -

322.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “285” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
323.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “286” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
324.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “287” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
325.

In response to paragraph “288” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “287”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
326.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “289” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
327.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “290” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
328.

In response to paragraph “291” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “290”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
329.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “292” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
330.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “293” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
331.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “294” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 40 -

332.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “295” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
333.

In response to paragraph “296” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “295”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
334.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “297” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
335.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “298” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
336.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “299” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
337.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “300” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
338.

In response to paragraph “301” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “300”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
339.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “302” of the Second Amended Complaint.
340.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “303” of the Second Amended Complaint.
341.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “304” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 41 -

342.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “305” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
343.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “306” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
344.

In response to paragraph “307” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “306”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
345.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “308” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
346.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “309” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
347.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “310” of the

Second Amended Complaint, and each subpart thereof.
348.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “311” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
349.

In response to paragraph “312” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “311”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
350.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “313” of the Second Amended Complaint.
351.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “314” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 42 -

352.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “315” of the Second Amended Complaint.
353.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “316” of the Second Amended Complaint.
354.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “317” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
355.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “318” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
356.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “319” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
357.

In response to paragraph “320” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “319”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
358.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “321” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
359.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “322”

including subparts (i)–(viii) inclusive of the Second Amended Complaint.
360.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “323” of

the Second Amended Complaint.
361.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “324” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
362.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “325” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 43 -

363.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “326” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
364.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “327” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
365.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “328” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
366.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “329” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
367.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “330” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
368.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “331”

including subparts (i)–(vi) inclusive of the Second Amended Complaint.
369.

In response to paragraph “332” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “331”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
370.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “333” of the

Second Amended Complaint, and respectfully refer the Court to the document referred to therein
for a complete and accurate statement of its contents.
371.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “334” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff’s claims have not been settled or
adjusted by the City of New York.
372.

Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations set forth in

Paragraph “335” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 44 -

373.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “336” of the

Second Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to the document referred to herein
for a true and accurate notice of plaintiff’s claims.
374.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “337” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
375.

Paragraph “338” of the Second Amended Complaint sets forth

legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent this paragraph is found to
interpose allegations of fact, City Defendants deny those allegations.
376.

In response to paragraph “339” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “338”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
377.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “340” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
378.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “341” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
379.

In response to paragraph “342” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “341”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
380.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “343” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
381.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “344” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 45 -

382.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “345” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
383.

In response to paragraph “346” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “345”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
384.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “347” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
385.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “348” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
386.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “349” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
387.

In response to paragraph “350” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “349”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
388.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “351” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
389.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “352” of the Second Amended Complaint.
390.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “353” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
391.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “354” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 46 -

392.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “355” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
393.

In response to paragraph “356” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “355”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
394.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “357” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
395.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “358” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
396.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “359” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
397.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “360” of the Second Amended Complaint.
398.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “361” of the Second Amended Complaint.
399.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “362” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
400.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “363” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
401.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “364” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 47 -

402.

In response to paragraph “365” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “364”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
403.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Negligent Retention . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
404.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “366” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
405.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “367” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
406.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “368” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
407.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “369” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
408.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “370” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
409.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “371” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
410.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “372” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
411.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “373” of the Second Amended Complaint.
412.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “374” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 48 -

413.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “375” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
414.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “376” of the

Second Amended Complaint and respectfully refer the Court to In the Matter of P.B.A. and City
of New York, Case # A-10699-04 for a true and accurate statement of the determination.
415.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “377” of the

Second Amended Complaint, except admit that Chief Marino was promoted.
416.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “378” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
417.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “379” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
418.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “380” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
419.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “381” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
420.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “382” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
421.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “383” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
422.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “384” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
423.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “385” of the

Second Amended Complaint.

- 49 -

424.

Deny the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Negligence in Failing . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
425.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “386” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
426.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “387” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
427.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “388” of the

Second Amended Complaint.
428.

In response to paragraph “389” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “388”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
429.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “390” of the Second Amended Complaint.
430.

Deny the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “391” of

the Second Amended Complaint to the extent they are asserted against City Defendants.
431.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “392” of the Second

Amended Complaint to the extent they are asserted against City Defendants.
432.

In response to paragraph “393” of the Second Amended

Complaint, City Defendants repeat and re-allege their responses to Paragraphs “1” through “392”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
433.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “394” of the Second Amended Complaint.

- 50 -

434.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “395” of the Second Amended Complaint.
435.

Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph “396” of the Second Amended Complaint.
436.

Deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph “397” of the Second

Amended Complaint, except admit that plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein.
AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
437.

The Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against City

Defendants upon which relief can be granted.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
438.

There was probable cause for placing plaintiff in protective

custody.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
439.

At all times relevant to the acts alleged in the amended complaint,

City Defendants acted reasonably in the proper and lawful exercise of their discretion.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
440.

The City Defendants have not violated any rights, privileges or

immunities secured to plaintiff under the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of
New York or any political subdivision thereof, nor have defendants violated any act of Congress
providing for the protection of civil rights.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
441.

The individual defendants are shielded from suit by the doctrines

of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, common law immunity, judicial immunity, or any
combination of these doctrines.
- 51 -

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
442.

Any injury alleged to have been sustained resulted from plaintiff’s

own culpable or negligent conduct, or the culpable and/or negligent acts of others, and was not
the proximate result of any act of the City Defendants.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
443.

At all times relevant to the acts alleged in the amended complaint,

the City Defendants acted reasonably, properly, lawfully and in good faith in the exercise of their
discretion. Consequently, defendant City of New York is entitled to governmental immunity.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
444.

Plaintiff has not satisfied all conditions precedent to suit.
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

445.

Punitive damages may not be assessed against the City of New

York.
AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
446.

This action may be barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable

statute of limitations.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
447.

Plaintiff provoked any incident.

- 52 -

WHEREFORE, City Defendants request judgment dismissing the Second
Amended Complaint in its entirety, together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and
such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York
October 18, 2012
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York
Attorney for City Defendants
100 Church Street, Room 3-200
New York, N.Y. 10007-2601
212-788-1103

By: _________/s/_______________
Suzanna Publicker
Assistant Corporation Counsel
cc:

Jon L. Norinsberg (By ECF)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Cohen & Fitch, LLP (By ECF)
Gerald Cohen
Joshua Fitch
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Gregory John Radomisli (By ECF)
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
Brian Lee (By ECF)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys for Dr. Isak Isakov
Bruce M. Brady (By ECF)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Lillian Aldana-Bernier
Walter Aoysius Kretz , Jr. (By ECF)
SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorney for Defendant Mauriello
- 53 -

10 Civ. 6005 (RWS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-AGAINSTTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
Defendants.

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF CITY
DEFENDANTS

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attorney for City Defendants
100 Church Street
New York, N.Y. 10007
Of Counsel: Suzanna Publicker
Tel: [phone]
NYCLIS No. 2010-033074
Due and timely service is hereby admitted.
New York, N.Y. ...................................................,2012
...............................................................................Esq.
Attorney for ..................................................................