Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 124

ANSWER to 103 Amended Complaint,,,,,,, with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Richard Wall.(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

DEFENDANT
WALL ANSWER
TO THE SECOND
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
10-CV-6005 (RWS)
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED

Defendant Sergeant Richard Wall (“Wall”), by his attorney, MICHAEL A.
CARDOZO, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, as and for his answer to the Second
Amended Complaint, respectfully alleges as follows:1
1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denies 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
admits that plaintiff self-identifies as a Caucasian male and as a citizen of the United States.
7.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits 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.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) is an
1

According to a review of the Civil Docket Sheet, Lieutenant William Gough, 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.
-2-

agency of the City of New York and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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, defendant states 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.
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.

-3-

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.

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

Amended Complaint except admits, upon information and belief, that Lieutenant Elise Hanlon is
a duly sworn lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department (“FDNY”), however,
defendant states 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.

Denies 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.
18.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

-4-

20.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint except admits, 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.
27.

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

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

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

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

-5-

29.

Denies 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.

Denies 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
admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was honorably discharged from the United
States Navy.
31.

Denies 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
admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff joined the NYPD in July 2002.
32.

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

the Second Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

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

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.
35.

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

Amended Complaint.
36.

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

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

-6-

37.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received a
“Meritorious Police Duty” award.
38.

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
41.

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

Amended Complaint.
42.

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

Amended Complaint.
43.

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

Amended Complaint.
44.

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

Amended Complaint.
45.

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

Amended Complaint.
46.

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

Amended Complaint.

-7-

47.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
51.

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

Amended Complaint.
52.

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

Amended Complaint.
53.

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

Amended Complaint.
54.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.

-8-

56.

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

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

Denies 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
admits, upon information and belief, that Lieutenant Delafuente was previously assigned to the
81st Precinct.
58.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
60.

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

Amended Complaint.
61.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.
63.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

-9-

64.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received an
overall rating of 2.5 and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
69.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

- 10 -

70.

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

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

Denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, that Sergeant Meyer is a
Squad Sergeant at the 81st Precinct, and further, denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff met
with supervisors at the 81st Precinct in order to discuss his performance evaluation.
77.

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

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

- 11 -

78.

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

Amended Complaint.
79.

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

Amended Complaint.
80.

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

Amended Complaint.
81.

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

Amended Complaint.
82.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
84.

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

Amended Complaint.
85.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.
87.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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 -

88.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.
94.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

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

Amended Complaint.

- 13 -

96.

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

Amended Complaint.
97.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
99.

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

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

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
103.

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

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

- 14 -

104.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief,

that plaintiff contacted

Captain Lauterborn.
106.

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

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
109.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, Captain Lauterborn told
plaintiff he would be subject to more supervision.
110.

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

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

- 15 -

111.

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

Amended Complaint.
112.

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

Amended Complaint.
113.

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

Amended Complaint.
114.

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

Amended Complaint.
115.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
117.

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

Amended Complaint.
118.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Escalate Their . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
119.

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

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

120.

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

Amended Complaint.

- 16 -

121.

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

Amended Complaint.
122.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
127.

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

Amended Complaint.
128.

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

Amended Complaint.
129.

Denies 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.

- 17 -

130.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
133.

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

Amended Complaint.
134.

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Reports the Corruption . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
136.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

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

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

- 18 -

139.

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

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

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
143.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.
145.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

- 19 -

147.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
149.

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

Amended Complaint.
150.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
152.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
154.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

Denies 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.

- 20 -

156.

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

Amended Complaint.
157.

Denies 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
162.

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

Amended Complaint.
163.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Plaintiff Leaves Work . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended Complaint.
164.

Denies 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.

- 21 -

165.

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

Amended Complaint, except denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
167.

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

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

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

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

Denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff received a
voicemail from Dr. Lamstein on or about October 31, 2009.
171.

Denies 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.
172.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

- 22 -

173.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
175.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits, 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 refers 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.
179.

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

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refers the Court to digital tape recordings made by

- 23 -

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.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
184.

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

Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.
185.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits that plaintiff was taken into protective custody and

- 24 -

respectfully refers 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
188.

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

Amended Complaint.
189.

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

Amended Complaint.
190.

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

Amended Complaint.
191.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
194.

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

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

- 25 -

195.

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

Amended Complaint.
196.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
198.

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

Amended Complaint.
199.

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

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

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

beginning with “Defendants Make Blatantly False . . .” as set forth in the Second Amended
Complaint.
202.

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

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

- 26 -

203.

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

Amended Complaint.
204.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
206.

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

Amended Complaint.
207.

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

Amended Complaint.
208.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
211.

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

- 27 -

213.

Denies 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 admits, 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
218.

Denies 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 admits, upon information and belief, that plaintiff was admitted into the psychiatric ward
at JHMC on or about November 2, 2009.
219.

Denies 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.
220.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

- 28 -

222.

Denies 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.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

Denies 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 admits, 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
226.

Denies 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.

Denies 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 refers the Court to plaintiff’s hospital records for a true and accurate account of their
contents.
228.

Denies 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 refers the Court to plaintiff’s hospital records for a true and accurate account of their
content.

- 29 -

229.

Denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
231.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.
238.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.

- 30 -

240.

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

Amended Complaint.
241.

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

Amended Complaint.
242.

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

Amended Complaint.
243.

Denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
245.

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

Amended Complaint.
246.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
248.

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

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

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

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

- 31 -

250.

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

Amended Complaint.
251.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
253.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits 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.

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

Amended Complaint, and respectfully refers the Court to the QAD Report for a true and accurate
recitation of its contents.
256.

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

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

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

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

- 32 -

258.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

Amended Complaint.
260.

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits that investigators executed a search warrant at a pharmacy in
Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
264.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.

- 33 -

266.

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

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

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

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

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint, except admits 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
272.

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

Amended Complaint.
273.

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

Amended Complaint.
274.

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

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

- 34 -

275.

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

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

Denies 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.

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

Amended Complaint.
278.

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

Amended Complaint.
279.

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

Amended Complaint.
280.

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

Amended Complaint.
281.

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

Amended Complaint.
282.

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

Amended Complaint, except admits that Nelson’s authority or duty was not modified as a result
of the investigation.
283.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

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

- 35 -

285.

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

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

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
288.

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

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

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

Amended Complaint.
290.

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

Amended Complaint.
291.

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

Amended Complaint.
292.

In response to paragraph “255” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “254”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
293.

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

Amended Complaint.

- 36 -

294.

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

Amended Complaint.
295.

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

Amended Complaint.
296.

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

Amended Complaint.
297.

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

Amended Complaint.
298.

In response to paragraph “261” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “260”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
299.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
300.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
301.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
302.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
303.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 37 -

304.

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

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint, except admits 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
307.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
308.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
309.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
310.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
311.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
312.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
313.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 38 -

314.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “277”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
316.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
317.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “280”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
319.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
320.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
321.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
322.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
323.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 39 -

324.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “287”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
326.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
327.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “290”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
329.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
330.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
331.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
332.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “295”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

- 40 -

334.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
335.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
336.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
337.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “300”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
339.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
342.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
343.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 41 -

344.

In response to paragraph “307” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “306”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
345.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
346.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
347.

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

the Second Amended Complaint, and each subpart thereof.
348.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “311”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
350.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.
352.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

- 42 -

354.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
355.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
356.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “319”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
358.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
359.

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

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
361.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
362.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
363.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
364.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 43 -

365.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
366.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
367.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
368.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “331”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
370.

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph “335” of the Second Amended Complaint.
373.

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

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

- 44 -

374.

Denies 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, defendant Wall denies those allegations.
376.

In response to paragraph “339” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “338”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
377.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
378.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “341”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
380.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
381.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
382.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 45 -

383.

In response to paragraph “346” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “345”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
384.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
385.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
386.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “349”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
388.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
389.

Denies 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
391.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
392.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 46 -

393.

In response to paragraph “356” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “355”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
394.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
395.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
396.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
397.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
400.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
401.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
402.

In response to paragraph “365” of the Second Amended

Complaint, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “364”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

- 47 -

403.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
405.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
406.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
407.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
408.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
409.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
410.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
411.

Denies 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.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
413.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.

- 48 -

414.

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

the Second Amended Complaint and respectfully refers 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.

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

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

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
417.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
418.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
419.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
420.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
421.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
422.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
423.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
424.

Denies the allegations set forth in the unnumbered Paragraph

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

- 49 -

425.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
426.

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

the Second Amended Complaint.
427.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “388”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
429.

Denies 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.

Denies 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.

Denies 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, Defendant Wall repeats and re-alleges his responses to Paragraphs “1” through “392”
of the Second Amended Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
433.

Denies 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.
434.

Denies 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.

- 50 -

435.

Denies 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.

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

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

There was probable cause for placing plaintiff in protective

custody.
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
438.

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

defendant Wall acted reasonably in the proper and lawful exercise of her discretion.
AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
439.

Defendant Wall has 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 has she violated any act of Congress
providing for the protection of civil rights.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
440.

Defendant Wall is shielded from suit by the doctrines of absolute

immunity, qualified immunity, common law immunity, judicial immunity, or any combination of
these doctrines.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
441.

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 defendant Wall.

- 51 -

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
442.

Plaintiff has not satisfied all conditions precedent to suit.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
443.

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

statute of limitations.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
444.

Plaintiff provoked any incident.

- 52 -

WHEREFORE, defendant Wall requests 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
January 29, 2013
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:

Richard Gilbert (By ECF)
Attorney for Plaintiff
115 Christopher Street, 2nd Floor
New York, New York 10014
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 DEFENDANT
WALL

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. ...................................................,2013
...............................................................................Esq.
Attorney for ..................................................................