Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 118

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Suzanna Publicker dated 10/23/2012 re: Based on the foregoing, this office requests to be relieved as counsel for defendant Mauriello. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/23/2012) (rdz)

10/23/2012 TUB 13:03
~'.l

~l;;

FAX [phone]
4

1lI002/004

~r.l

'..".. -··7:::::.::::::.:::::':::::::--"···'---:;;;E;.

USDC 0DNY
DOCUMENT
"Y

... .1 ....'

, "':I.

.~ .~. ~...~

tl

_

... _

... _'.to_·l~\,',,,",Io"

'1\ OCT 2 3 2012

,.. '., '-:".' I

· DOC #:
'
11I D1'.1. .t:. I~'I-'.""'''''~ _~I". ',.".... ,....
I .
t\T'r;'
rr;; '1' ·'''\T.' t,''
L,.., L ••
-

~1E~lEll~lE~

·-·-·----·-I~!

\ll}J
I

'

~'''' --­ .

L

~

.•

JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS

,.

-"_'flt'll~'_'

'.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW 'DEPARTMENT

M1CIIAEL A. CARDOZO

SUZANNA l'UrlLlCKt:H
phune: (212) 788·1 10)

100 CI lURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

CorporalIon COIJnsef

ta~;

(212) nX-Y77<;

t:rJll1il: spLl[)lick@law,nyc.gov

October 23,2012

BY FAX
Honorable Robert W. Sweet

United Stutes District Judge

Soulhem District of Ncw York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Re: Schoolcraft v. 111e City of New York, et ul.

lO-CV-6005 (RWS)

Your Honor:
I am the Assistant Corporation Counse1 in the office of Michael A. Curdozo,

Ccrpcrntion C6uMelM' the City of New Vork, M~j~n6d to rcpl'esent the City Dere11d~ftt~ 1n the
above-referenced matter. City Defendunts write in response to pluintilT's letter dated October
18, 2012, in which plaintiff opposes defendant Mauriello':; application to compel plaintiff' to
appear for deposition. Speciiically, City Defendants wish to address certain statements mudt: by
plaintiff concerning the current legal representuti(m of defendant Mauriello.
First, plaintiff's allegation that the undersigned currently represents defendant
Mauriello since the Office of Corporation Counsel never moved to be withdrawn as counsel is
disingenuous. Regardless
what appears on the civil docket sheet, p1aintiff is well aware of the
fact thut defendant Mauriello has been represented by Wulter Kretz, Esq., since early this year.l
Any suggestion otherwise is patently false. Tn any event, for the sake of clarity, since there
appears' to be some confusion, lhi:i ollice 'respectfully requests to be relieved m, counstll for
,
defendant Steven Muureillo. 2

or

Second, plaintIff has wildly overstepped his bounds by stating that there is no
actllal eont1lct of interest between the City.of New,York and detendant Mauriello. Section 50­
k(2) of the Generul Muni(.;ipul Law states, among other things, that the City shull provide lor the
defense of un ~mployec in an action "arising out of uoy ulleged act or omission which dIe
Corporation CounseJ finds occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his

employment and in the discharge of his duties and was not in violation of Hny ru1e or regul~tlion
this

of his agency at the tinic the alleged act or omission OCCUlTed.", A (let c(1reiul c011Sideration,

I Though MI'. Kret,.; only tiled 11 Notic(.l of Appcamtlcc in May 2012, he hod been involved in the matter since March

2012.
l

.

,

This oft1ce is prepared to submit a tbmmJ Illotion tbr witbdrawal or represenlation if required by the Comt.

10/23/2012 TUE 13: 03
.')

n

FAX [phone]

~OO~/004

Honorable Robert W. Sweet
SchoolcraH v. The City of New York. et 01.
October 23, 2012
Page 2
Office determined'thut it could not make the requisite Jindings under Section 50-k(2), and Ul) a
result, was unable (J continue to represent defendant Mauriello. To disclose in any gret1t~r detail
the reasoning behind that decision andlor to idcl1tify.thc specific conflicl or interest necessitating
o~ltside counscJ would severely prejudice defendant Mauriello, and also violate the attomey­
.
client and work-product privileges.
Furthl'l11110rc, the basis for pluintiIT's unilateral decision thut there is no conflict
between deli:mdants City and MaurieJlo - that because we represenled Mauriello in the past then
there can be no cqnflict of interest now is meritles5. Plaintiff Calmot seriously dispuk that
prior to early thi:-; year, when Mauriello's representation changed, this aclion W(l~ essentially
donm\nl. By way of background, thi s maUer was filed on or about August I, 2010, atld amended
as of right on or about September 13, 2010. Shortly thereafter, former Assistatlt Corporation
Counsel Donna Cunl1eld conducted representution interviews of aU named City deH.mdan1s and
assumed representation on their behalf. On or about December 2, 2010) Ms. Canflc1d answered
the i.tmended complaint on behHl f (}f all City Defendunls. 3 However, prior to filiJlg City
Defonc1ants' atl3Wer, derend~mt Jalnalca Hospital Medical Center ("JIIMC") (]led ~t Motion to
Dismiss JIlMC llS a defendant on or aboul October 12, 2010. JIIMC's Motion to Dismiss wus
.denied U11 or about May 6, 2011, however, due to a serie.s of adjournments, a Pre-Trial
Conlerence was not held until February 9, 2012. The undersigned was assigned to this matter on
March 6, 2012. Shortly Ulcrcaficr, 1 was inl·llrmec\ that due to a conflict or interest in our
representation or defendant Mauriello, Walter Kretz, Iisq, would be rcprcscirting him:going
forward.
Thus, in short, this Onice's representation of d~lendant Mauriello consisted
a
representation interview by i.l fhlmer Assistant Corporation Counsel atld filing one answer on his
behalf." This is hardly representative of a long-standing .und involved rcprcsent.'1tion
relationship,5

or

Based on the fOl'egt>ing, this office requests 10· be relieved as counsel for
defendant Mauriello. The undersigned submit the de{i;:nda11t should not prejudictld by the
granting of this request as he has been repre~ented by Walter Kretz, Esq. for the past seven
months.
I thank the Court for its consideration.

RespeeHhl1y submitted.

SU~k.r

Assistant Corporation Counsel

3 Plaintiff elTonc(lusly Slated in his October 18, 2012 llwti·;)~ thal llu: City of New York hilS twice answered on
behalf of defendant Mauriello. Upon infonmtlion and belief, only one answer was filed on behal!' vf uurur'ldanl
Mauriello, and t]mt was on Decembor 2, 201 0,
4 The under:.;igTIllU has never met or spoken to defendl:lnt M!Wriollo:
l Plaintiff's nrgument that the defendl:lnls' i:!ru "uniled in Interest" because of the theory of rcsPlJnd~al superior is
equally unavailing. Indeed, plaintiff offers no supporting CI:ISC Itlw rur the proposition that respondeat superior
precludes a finding ofa conflict of interest under Nuw York General Mllnicip[li 'Law.

10/23/2012 TUB 13: 03
"I,

t:Jl

FAX [phone]
ICfl

IIonontble Robcl1 W. Sweet
Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, ctJi!.
October 23,2012
Page 3
cc:
Jon L. Norinsberg (By Fax [phone])
Artorney jar Pl!linliff
225 Broadway, Suite 2700

New York, New York 10007

Cohen & Fit(.;h, LLP (By Fax [phone])
Gerald Cohen
Joshua Fitch

Attorneys jor Pl(ltn/~tr
233 Broadway, Suite UWO

New York, New York 10279

Gregory John Radomisli (lly Fax 212-949~7054)
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BKLL LLP
Attorneys for Janwica Ho.\pital Medical Center
220 East 42nd Street nth Floor

New York, NY 10017

ilrian Lee (By Fax [phone])

IVONE, DEVLNE & JENSRN, LLP

Attorneys/or Dr. Isak lsakov .
200 I Marcus Avenue, Suite N 100

Lake Succes~, New York 11042

Bruce M. Brady (By FtlX 212~24~-6815)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneysfor LtllianAldana-Bernier
1 \Vhitehall Street

New York, New York 10004

Wulter Aoysius Kretz, Jr. (By Fux 212-371-6883)
SRIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorney for Dejendcuil Maw:iello
444 Madisun Avenue, 30th I,'loor

New York, NY l0022

~004/004