Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
174
DECLARATION of Walter Kretz in Support re: 173 MOTION for Leave to File Answer Amended with Counterclaims.. Document filed by Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117, Individually), Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117 in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Answer, # 2 Exhibit NYPD Tapes cover)(Kretz, Walter)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff,
-against10-CV-06005 (RWS)
THE 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 THEODORE
LAUTERBORN, Tax Id. 897840, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM 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,
LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax Id. 885374 Individually
and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, Shield
No. 3004, Individually and in her Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT
THOMAS HANLEY, Tax Id. 879761, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, Tax Id. 899922,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT SONDRA
WILSON, Shield No. 5172, Individually and in her Official Capacity,
SERGEAANT ROBERT W. O’HARE, Tax Id. 916960, Individually
and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT RICHARD WALL, Shield
No. 3099 and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #1-50, Individually and in their
Official Capacity, (the name John Doe being fictitious, as the true
names are presently unknown), (collectively referred to as “NYPD
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 her 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 MAURIELLO’S ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,
AMENDED WITH COUNTERCLAIMS
Defendant STEVEN MAURIELLO, by his attorneys, SCOPPETTA
SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE, for his Answer, amended with counterclaims, to the
Second Amended Complaint, alleges as follows:
1.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies that he violated plaintiff’s civil rights and denies plaintiff is
entitled to recover compensatory or punitive damages or attorney’s fees from him.
2.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies he participated in the alleged wrongdoing, and denies, upon
information and belief, that any of the other defendants engaged in such wrongdoing.
3.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admits venue is properly laid in the Southern District of New York.
4.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraphs 6, 8, 13 through 30, 32, 34 through 37, 45, 46, 49,
52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 64, 65, 67, 71, 78 through 82, 84, 92, 93 through 103, 105 107, 109
through 115, 117, 120 through 125, 134 through 139, 141, 142, 145 through 152, 157
through 161, 163 through 169, 172, 173, 176, 179 through 207, 212, 213, 216 through
224, 226 through 246, 282, 289, 292, 299, 302 through 306, 313 through 319, 333
through 338, 352, 360 through 363, 366 through 382, 386, 387, 388, 390, 391, 392, 394,
395 and 396 of the Second Amended Complaint.
5.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits that at all relevant times he was a duly sworn officer of the
2
New York City Police Department and acted at all times in his official capacity in
furtherance of his official duties.
6.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admits plaintiff worked at the 81st Precinct until October 31, 2009.
7.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 33 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies that as a patrol officer plaintiff was designated as senior.
8.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 38, 39, 41, 47, 50, 51, 55, 62,
70, 72, 75, 76, 86, 87, 88, 91, 108, 116, 118, 156, 178, 208, 209, 210, 215, 225, 249, 252,
253, 254, 262 through 277, 279, 280, 283 through 287, 290, 293 through 295, 297, 298,
300, 308 through 311, 321 through 331, 340, 341, 347 through 349, 351, 353, 354, 355,
357, 364, 384 and 385.
9.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits he was assigned to the 81st Precinct in or about October 2006.
10.
With respect to the allegations in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the
Second Amended Complaint, denies that he berated or threatened his officers and alleges
he at all times directed and encouraged his officers to properly do the work they were
obligated to do as police officers in the New York City Police Department.
11.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 44 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies there was an illegal quota policy or that he enforced any such policy.
12.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Second Amended
Complaint, and respectfully refers the Court to the complete statement made by him on
3
the occasion cited, which, upon information and belief, was at least partially recorded by
plaintiff, surreptitiously.
13.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 54 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
whether plaintiff engaged in the alleged wrongdoing.
14.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 58 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff received an overall rating of 2.5.
15.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 59 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff received an overall rating of 2.5.
16.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 63 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits at some point plaintiff said he intended to appeal his evaluation
and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to when plaintiff first
said so.
17.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 66 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies that “the only way plaintiff improve future performance evaluations, was if
plaintiff raised his ’ACTIVITY,’ by writing ‘MORE SUMMONSES’ and being ‘MORE
PROACTIVE.’”
18.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 68 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits a meeting took place on or about the date alleged.
19.
Admit the allegations of paragraph 69 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except alleges upon information and belief that Lieutenant Crawford also
attended the meeting.
4
20.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff was told he would get a higher evaluation if he were
more actively engaged in fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of a patrol officer while
on patrol.
21.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 74 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to whether the alleged statement was made at the meeting, except admits that an
effort was made at the meeting to get plaintiff to understand it was his obligation to be
actively engaged in fulfilling his duties and responsibilities as a patrol officer while on
patrol.
22.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 77 of the Second
Amended Complaint, respectfully refers the Court to the cited decision for its content.
23.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 83 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies plaintiff’s evaluation directly correlates to his failure to meet the alleged illegal
summons/arrest quota, and denies there was such a quota in the 81st Precinct.
24.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 85 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admits Michael Marino is Deputy Chief of Patrol Borough Brooklyn North.
25.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 89 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff said he would appeal his evaluation.
5
26.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 90 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits the alleged letter was received, and respectfully refers the
Court to the letter for its complete contents.
27.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 93 and 140 of the Second
Amended Complaint, except admits upon information and belief that defendant Caughey
made a copy of plaintiff’s memo book.
28.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 104 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies that he engaged in the alleged conduct and denies
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether anyone else engaged
in any such conduct.
29.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 106 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to what P.O. Zucker may have communicated to plaintiff.
30.
Denies the allegations of paragraph 119 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to why
plaintiff’s gun and shield had been removed,
31.
With respect to the allegations of paragraph 126 of the Second
Amended Complaint, admits plaintiff submitted a request and respectfully refers the
Court to the letter for its contents.
32.
With respect to the allegations of paragraph of paragraph 127 of
the Second Amended Complaint, denies plaintiff’s appeal was not sent to Patrol Borough
Brooklyn North, denies knowing that plaintiff’s appeal had been closed, and denies
plaintiff repeatedly inquired of him about the appeal.
6
33.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 128 and 129 of the Second
Amended Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
with respect to whether the alleged meeting took place or what plaintiff might have said.
34.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 130 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies, upon information and belief, that plaintiff witnessed at least
thirteen instances, or that there were thirteen instances, where crimes were being
underreported in order to avoid index crime classification.
35.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations in paragraph
131 of the Second Amended Complaint.
36.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 132 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admits plaintiff was placed on performance monitoring.
37.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 133 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits receiving the alleged memo issued by defendant Caughey, and
respectfully refers the Court to the memo for its contents.
38.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations of paragraph
143 of the Second Amended Complaint.
39.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations of paragraph
144 of the Second Amended Complaint, except admits that plaintiff left work before the
end of his tour.
40.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Second
Amended Complaint, except admits he and Chief Michael Marino, as well as two
7
members of the Emergency Services Unit, were among those who entered plaintiff’s
apartment.
41.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 155 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff was ordered by Chief Marino to get dressed and to
return to the 81st Precinct.
42.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 162 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies the alleged unlawful scheme.
43.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations of paragraph
170 of the Second Amended Complaint, except denies there was an illegal home
invasion, and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether
Paul Brown was present.
44.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations of paragraph
171 of the Second Amended Complaint, except denies he participated in any such alleged
activity and denies the alleged corruption existed in the 81st Precinct.
45.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 174 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits plaintiff was restrained and carried from his home.
46.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 175 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits upon information and belief that plaintiff was taken to Jamaica
Hospital and admitted.
47.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 177 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
admits plaintiff’s landlord provided a key for plaintiff’s apartment.
8
48.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 211 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies he had any contact with Jamaica Hospital.
49.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 214 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies the existence of any conspiracy with or favors by Jamaica Hospital.
50.
Upon information and belief, denies the allegations in paragraph
248 of the Second Amended Complaint, except denies he participated in the manipulation
of crime statistics.
51.
Denies the allegations in paragraph 250 of the Second Amended
Complaint, except admits he regularly encouraged police officers to be vigilant and
active in performing their duties while on patrol.
52.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraph 251 of the Second Amended Complaint, except
denies the matters alleged are evidence of any of his directives to his officers.
53.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 256 through 260, except
admits that at all relevant times he was acting within the scope of his employment in
furtherance of his duties as an officer of the New York City Police Department.
54.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief with
respect to the allegations in paragraphs 343, 344 and 345, except denies he ever touched
the plaintiff.
55.
Denies the allegations in paragraphs 358 and 359, except admits
that at all relevant times he was acting within the scope of his employment in
9
furtherance of his duties as an officer of the New York City Police Department.
56.
With respect to the allegations in paragraph 397 of the Second
Amended Complaint, denies there is any basis for an award of compensatory or punitive
damages, attorney’s fees or any other relief to the plaintiff, and denies there is a basis for
imposing on him any liability for damages to the plaintiff.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against defendant
Steven Mauriello upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Steven Mauriello has at all relevant times acted within the
scope of his employment and in the proper and lawful performance of his duties and
responsibilities.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Steven Mauriello may be barred in
whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff was caused by plaintiff’s own
culpable conduct or the culpable conduct of others, and was not caused or contributed to
by defendant Steven Mauriello.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Steven Mauriello has not violated any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured to plaintiff under the Constitution or laws of the United States or the
10
State of New York or any political subdivision thereof, nor has defendant Mauriello
violated any act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Steven Mauriello is shielded from suit by the doctrines of
absolute immunity, qualified immunity, common law immunity or a combination of such
doctrines.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendant Steven Mauriello has at all relevant times acted reasonably,
properly, lawfully, and in good faith in the exercise of his discretion.
DEFENDANT MAURIELLO’S COUNTERCLAIMS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF SCHOOLCRAFT FOR
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH MAURIELLO’S EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP AND PRIMA FACIE TORT
1.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Defendant
Mauriello’s counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) as the counterclaims are
so related to plaintiff’s claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under
Article III of the United States Constitution.
2.
The counterclaims seek recovery from plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft
in his individual capacity for the damage suffered by Steven Mauriello as a result of
plaintiff’s tortious interference with Mauriello’s employment relationship with the New
York City Police Department (NYPD), and as a result of plaintiff’s prima facie tort,
willfully and maliciously engaging in conduct whose sole purpose was to damage the
career and reputation of Steven Mauriello, thus causing him to suffer financial losses,
while providing undeserved and improper support for the unfounded claims of revenge
11
plaintiff intended to assert, and has asserted, against the City of New York and the
NYPD.
3.
On October 7, 2009, in a telephone conversation with his father,
Larry Schoolcraft, while the plaintiff was on his way to his first meeting with members of
the New York City Police Department Quality Assurance Division (QAD), plaintiff and
his father discussed their plan for what plaintiff should tell QAD. The plan they agreed
upon was as follows:
i)
plaintiff would falsely complain to QAD of routine downgrading of crime
at the 81st Precinct without revealing to QAD he was doing so purely for the sake of
getting revenge against Mauriello – the expressed goal being to “fuck [Mauriello] over,”
and without revealing that plaintiff himself had intentionally contributed to the incidence
of improper crime reporting to try to make a more compelling showing of wrongdoing at
the 81st Precinct; apparently plaintiff and his father were seeking revenge against
Mauriello because Mauriello signed off on plaintiff’s 2008 evaluation, in which plaintiff
received a sub-standard rating; they hoped that by their false accusations Mauriello would
be terminated as the “scapegoat” for the intentional downgrading of crime in the NYPD;
plaintiff failed to reveal to QAD, at the initial meeting or at any time thereafter, that he
had recorded countless hours of conversation at the 81st Precinct for a period of three
years or more, and that the recordings did not provide any support for plaintiff’s
accusations of improper crime reporting; and
ii)
plaintiff would do his best to influence QAD to find downgrading of crime
had occurred in the 81st Precinct, not only so Mauriello would be sanctioned, but also to
thereby create support for the claims plaintiff was planning to assert in a lawsuit he
12
intended to bring against the NYPD; in that lawsuit, plaintiff would improperly allege,
without foundation, as he has since alleged in this case, that he received a sub-standard
evaluation because of his failure to comply with unlawful quotas, which he would falsely
allege, and has alleged, existed in the 81st Precinct.
4.
Plaintiff and his father also reveal in the October 7, 2009,
conversation, which plaintiff recorded, that plaintiff should, and he ultimately did,
deceive QAD about plaintiff’s motives by falsely explaining to QAD that he had taken it
upon himself to gather information about purported wrongdoing in the NYPD because he
was concerned about the safety of the people in the community as well as the safety of
police officers. In fact, neither sentiment was true.
5.
In clear contradiction of those sentiments, plaintiff reveals while
speaking to his father that “ain’t nobody my friend” in the NYPD, and if any fellow
officers in the NYPD were to suffer any consequences as a result of what plaintiff
intended to report to QAD, “they asked for it” because “none of these guys came to my
aid when [the NYPD was] coming at me.”
6.
Plaintiff also expressed an even more stark contradiction of the
sentiments he planned to express and did falsely express to QAD about his purported
concern for the predominantly minority community served by the 81st precinct. In
response to an inaudible question from his father, apparently about whether one or more
officers with whom plaintiff had worked would be supportive of plaintiff, plaintiff told
his father the other officers and he “just worked together so we wouldn’t have to work
with any niggers.”
13
7.
Thus, plaintiff held himself out to QAD and all others, including
the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB), members of the press, and the public generally,
under extremely false pretenses for the purpose not of protecting his fellow officers or the
rights of the residents of the Bedford Stuyvesant community, but for the purpose of
getting revenge against Steven Mauriello -- interfering in his employment relationship
with the NYPD, and otherwise trying to destroy his career and reputation – while also
creating false support for plaintiff’s lawsuit against the NYPD.
8.
With respect to plaintiff’s false accusations that illegal quotas were
imposed by Steven Mauriello and that plaintiff’s failure to comply with them was the
basis for his sub-standard evaluation, plaintiff had surreptitiously recorded roll calls and
other conversations in the 81st Precinct for perhaps three years or longer, and he secretly
recorded the meetings he requested with his union delegate and his supervising officers
from the 81st Precinct with respect to his appeal of his 2008 evaluation. Yet, there is no
evidence that unlawful quotas actually were imposed on plaintiff or anyone else or played
any part in plaintiff’s evaluation. The accusations are false and were maliciously made
by plaintiff, and continue to be made by him, to cause Mauriello undeserved harm and to
provide plaintiff with false support for his unfounded claims.
9.
With respect to plaintiff’s false accusation that the 81st Precinct
rampantly engaged in the downgrading of serious crime for which Mauriello inevitably
would be blamed, again, plaintiff’s surreptitious recordings do not provide any support
for this accusation. The documents plaintiff secretly accumulated also show nothing
more than the incidental occurrence of incorrect crime reporting. Moreover, only one
such incident involved Mauriello. Plaintiff, on the other hand, played a direct role in
14
causing at least three incidents of grand larceny and burglary, reported directly to him, to
be recorded instead as lost property, and causing at least three other incidents of crime
not to be recorded at all. In other words, plaintiff reported thirteen incidents of improper
crime reporting for the entire precinct over a period of a year or more, while he alone was
responsible for six such incidents during that same period. Apparently, plaintiff’s goal
was that the victims he mishandled would later return to the 81st Precinct, and in some
instances it appears he reached out to them to do so, to complain that their reports were
not taken or not followed up, thus making it appear that the 81st Precinct was engaged in
a pattern of not properly reporting crime.
10.
Plaintiff dishonestly reported to QAD that the eleven instances he
identified where a crime report was improperly downgraded, plus two additional
incidents reported in the press and attributed to plaintiff, were only a small sample of
such downgrading in the 81st Precinct, when, in fact, plaintiff did not know of any other
instances, and actually knew or should have known that incorrect crime reporting only
rarely occurred in the 81st Precinct. Indeed, it was later independently determined, after a
thorough scrutiny of the 81st Precinct’s records, that of more than 1100 crime reports
prepared in the 81st Precinct over a period of approximately one year, only approximately
two percent had been incorrectly classified – a total of 23, which was consistent with the
City-wide average and far better than several other precincts throughout the City.
Despite the performance of the 81st Precinct with respect to the classification of crimes, it
and, in particular, Steve Mauriello, became the target of ridicule in some media due to
plaintiff’s unfounded and exaggerated criticism, his manipulation of the records, the
15
bizarre events of October 31, 2009, and the sensationalized and apparently selective
release of the recordings plaintiff had made in the 81st Precinct.
11.
Steven Mauriello had de minimus involvement in the events of
October 31, 2009, which are the principal subject of plaintiff’s complaint, and did not
engage in any of the alleged wrongdoing specified in the complaint, having been present
in plaintiff’s apartment only briefly. Yet, plaintiff has named Mauriello as a defendant in
furtherance of his attempt to get revenge on Mauriello and to build on that effort by
trying to taint the NYPD’s actions on October 31, 2009, as being motivated by
Mauriello’s purported desire to retaliate against plaintiff for communicating with QAD
and IAB.
12.
There is no evidence that anyone acted out of a desire to retaliate
against plaintiff on October 31, 2009, instead they acted out of a desire to prevent
plaintiff from doing harm to himself and others. There is substantial reason to believe, on
the other hand, that plaintiff’s conduct on October 31, 2009, much of it revealed by
surreptitious recordings made by plaintiff himself, was designed to provoke a response by
the NYPD that plaintiff hoped to be able to point to as an act of retaliation in the lawsuit
he had already planned to bring against the NYPD. It was a sinister, cynical and
malicious effort by plaintiff and his father that has resulted in this action being brought
before this Court.
13.
As a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct by plaintiff, Steven
Mauriello has suffered damage to his career and reputation, his employment relationship
with the NYPD has suffered, he will continue to suffer financial losses in the future, he
16
has undeservedly suffered public humiliation and scorn, and has been caused to suffer
extreme emotional distress.
14.
Plaintiff’s conduct represents a high degree of immorality and
shows such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to his civil obligations.
Plaintiff acted with the intent to do harm to Steven Mauriello, and in doing so
demonstrated a conscious indifference and utter disregard not only for the rights of
Mauriello, but others as well.
15.
Based upon the foregoing, Steven Mauriello is entitled to
compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than two
million dollars, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less
than two million dollars.
WHEREFORE, defendant Steven Mauriello requests judgment dismissing
the claims alleged against him in the Second Amended Complaint in their entirety,
imposing liability against plaintiff on defendant Mauriello’s counterclaims, awarding
damages of two million dollars on each of the counterclaims, awarding punitive damages
of two million dollars, and granting such other relief to defendant Mauriello as the Court
deems just, together with an award of costs.
Dated: New York, New York
September 24, 2013
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneys for Defendant STEVEN MAURIELLO
By: _____________________________
Walter A. Kretz, Jr., (WK-4645)
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022
wakretz@seiffkretz.com
17
212-371-4500
18
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?