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: (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?