Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 154

DECLARATION of Rachel Seligman Weiss in Opposition re: 153 Memorandum of Law in Opposition. Document filed by The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Seligman, Rachel)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR] SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X DECLARATION OF RACHEL SELIGMAN \ilEISS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEV/ YORK, et al., 10 Civ. 600s (RWS) Defendants X Rachel Seligman Weiss, declares pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1746, under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct. L I am a Senior Counsel in the ofhce of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, attorney for defendant City of New York ("City") in the instant matter. As such, I am familiar with the facts stated below and submit this declaration to place the relevant documents on the record in support of defendant's opposition to plaintiffs motion for a stay of all further administrative proceedings by defendant City and the New York City Police Department ("NYPD"). 2. Plaintiff is currently a suspended NYPD police officer. 3. On or about January 15, 2010, plaintiff was served with disciplinary charges in connection with his employment with the New York City Police Department. See Letter from the New York City Police Department to Peter J. Gleason, Esq., dated April 8, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Specifically, plaintiff was charged with being absent from work without leave, failing to make himself available to be examined by a NYPD Surgeon, failing to report to his resident precinct, failing to appear at the NYPD's Department Advocate's Offlrce for restoration to duty, failing to notiff the NYPD of his current residence, and impeding NYPD investigators. Id. Charges seemingly unrelated to issues in this matter. 4. Thereafter, on additional disciplinary charges. Id. or about February 4, 2010, plaintiff was served with Plaintiff was charged with failing to comply with orders, being absent without leave, failing to safeguard NYPD property, impeding an investigation, and failing to surrender 5. a rifle in his possession. Id. On or about August 10, 2010, well after the time that plaintiff had been served with the disciplinary charges, he instituted this action alleging not that the pending disciplinary charges violated his constitutional rights, but that the entry into his home on October 31,2009, and subsequent confinement in Jamaica Hospital violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. 6. seeking On or about January 28,2013, plaintiff, via counsel, forwarded a letter to be restored to duty and requesting that his assignment be severely limited, undertaking the traditional duties of a police offrcer. annexed hereto as Exhibit 7. In not A copy of the January 28,2013 letter is "B." response to the January 28, 2013 letter from plaintiff the NYPD informed plaintiff that it would schedule a trial in order to resolve the outstanding disciplinary charges against plaintiff (the "Administrative Trial"). Id. The administrative trial was scheduled to commence on June 17, 2013. 8. Although the Administrative Trial was prompted, in part, by plaintiff s January 28,2013letter, indicating his wish to be reinstated as a NYPD officer, on June 10,2013, plaintiff moved for a stay of the NYPD administrative trial that would resolve the issue. Civil Docket Entry No. 152. According to plaintiff, See even though he is far from sure on the issue, the stay is necessary just in case the administrative trial might have some preclusive effect on the -2- issues to be resolved in this civil matter. S¿e Plaintiffls Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a Stay, dated June 10, 2013 (hereinafter "P's memo."), ât pg. 8. 9. Regardless of the apparent dissimilarities between the administrative trial (which is designed to resolved an employment issue) and the instant civil rights matter (concerned with alleged First and Fourth Amendment deprivations), plaintiff contends that defendant City may gain some unfair advantage should the findings of the administrative trial have collateral estoppel effect on issues to be tried in the civil litigation. See P's memo at L 10. A simple review of the disciplinary charges against plaintiff, however, easily highlights the differences between the two matters. See NYPD April 8th Letter. Because of the disparities between the disciplinary charges and the civil rights claims (i.e. disciplinary charges pertaining to plaintiff not appearing for a NYPD surgeon andlor Department Advocate's office, as well as failing to secure NYPD property, and failing to surrender a firearm), unlikely that the administrative trial would have the preclusive effects that plaintiff suggests. Dated: New York, New York June 17,2013 MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Defendant City of New Y 100 Church 10007 New York, N (212) 3s6By: Counsel -3- it is Docket No. l0 Civ. 6005 TJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintift -against- CITY OF NEV/ YORK, et al., Defendants DECLARATION OF RACHEL SELIGMAN \ilEISS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STAY AND SUPPORTING EXHIBIT MICHAEL A, CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorneyfor Defendant City of New York 100 Church Street New York, N.Y. 10007 Of Counsel: Rachel Seligman lV'eiss Tel: (212) 356-2422 NYCLIS NO, service is hereby Admitted. Due and timely New York, N.Y. .......,2013 Esq Attorney.þr

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?