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)

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: [phone]
NYCLIS NO,
service is hereby Admitted.
Due and timely

New York,

N.Y.

.......,2013
Esq

Attorney.þr