Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 251

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 242 MOTION to Strike Document No. [10-cv-6005 (RWS)]. . Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Smith, Nathaniel)

Download PDF
LINITTD STA I'ES DIS'I'RII]1' COTJR'I SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------x ADRIAN SCI_IOOI,CRAII'I. l[)-cv-6001t (RWS) Plaintifl, Reply Memorandum of'Law In Further Support of Plaintiff s Motion lfo Strike -against- TFIE CITY OF NIIW YORK, et al, De:fendants. -----x Argument Plaintifl, Adrian Schoolcrafi., subrnits this rnemorandut.n in reply to the opposition frled by Detbndant, Steven Mauriello, t,c Plaintiffs motion to strike paragraph lrix o1' Mauriello's co,unterclairn. Maur"iello o ftr.ils to provide any' logical nexus betwet:n: his clairn that Of1rcer Schoolcraft made false statements about Mauniello to NYPD investisators about Vlauriello's misconduct o1'tl^re 81 o as the colnlnandiir-rg olfrcet' " Prccirrct; and his clairn that Olficer Schooh:raft is a "racist" who has used the "n" r,vord. Mauriello's counterclailrs are for lortious inter{brence with Mauriello's ctt'tployrnent relationship with thc NYPD and l-or trtrima.ftrc,ie torl. 'l'he counterclairns are based rln th,: allegation that Oft-rcer Schoolcraft reported Mauriello's misconduct tc NYPD investigators ficr tl-re sole pLlrpose ofrnaliciously injuring his career and reputation. (Cournterclaims, 112; Dkt t+23| .) Tossed into the rnidst of these clairns is the irrelevant. false. and inflammatory allegation that Olllcer Schoolcrafi used the "n" word in a cornversation that he had u,ith his f?rther. As wc argucd in our motion to strike, this fblsc allegation also has trltsolutely nothing to do rvith Mauriello's counterclain'r. In response, Nlauriello now triel; to jurstify his pleading by clairning that plaintifl-s alleged bias agait-tst.Afiican Atnet'icarrs "had a significant irnpact on plaintifl-s perlbrmance as a police Dkt #249.) fl^Lat olli;er." argument should be rejected because the (Opp. Mem. at p. 3; plaintiffs perfonnance as a police officer has no relevance to MaurLello's counterclaitns., Mauriello also argllcs that pleading the use o1'thc "lr" u,ord is relcvant to his counterclaims because that clain-r will ",undennine the porlrayal plaintiff has tried to create o1'hirnself as a person out to fight forthe interests of the rninority community serveC by the 81" I'recinct." (lcl ) Yct again, this argurnent does not provide any justiflcation or.' logical connection to the counterclainrs, r,vhich are based on the cltrim that Offl,;er Schoolcrafl rnade darnaging statenrents to Internal Affairs about Vlauriello, a w'hite rrale. T'hus, the sirnple fbct is that Mauriello has lbund away to irrterject a 1-alse an<l inflarnrnatory allegation that has nothing to do lvith Mar-rr"icllo's claims as a tneans c'f tainting the plaintil-1-irr thc eyes of the rnedia and the juty pool. As, we have alr,lady noted, Mauriello has rnadc and continues to make comrne:nts to the press arbout this allegation (seru continuing. lrxhibit A hercto) and the prejudicc to thc plaintiff is clear ,and ,At the bottom, Mauriello has tossed into his counterr:lairn an inflammtttory alle-qation thart he says could be used as a basis fbr cross examination o1'Ol'f'rcer' Schoolcrafi atrout an "inconsistent starterrent" to irnpeach Schoolcr aft's credibility. The argument (such as it is) is that. Schoolcraft claimed to want to serve the comlnLlnity in w,hich he worked but allegedly harbored sotne otherwise une:rprrlssecl racisn-r against Aliican Americans and that his alleged use o1-the "n" word is "inconsistent" w,ith the desire to serve that comrlunity. 'l'hus, the basis for paragraprh six of the counterclaim is the baseless; suggestion that Off icer Schoolcraff will interject race issues into the case and that this allegcd use of the "n" word ll'ill be or 'l'he f-ar-l'etched possibility that could be a propcr basis 1br cross exaurination at trial. the subject of the use o1'the "n" word on cross examination will too attenuatedl a basis lbr perrlitting allegation in er arn be: permitted is far otherwise in{latnrnatory and irrelevant pleading to sland. Nathaniel B.'Smith I I I Broadway - Suite I 305 New York, New York 10006, (212) 227-7062 Dated: Neu, York, New April 29,2011 Yorl< EXHIBIT A -+ l(l li) ij Whistleblower Gop: su;pervisor made up racist quote for legalfight By ,, -r: .-; c. r\pril 14,201 4I3.24om . lf'l I l'( ,+lt s:Fri&aieil:i-1=lEii:{la;d!;rci5-l:i;f.}i:;.:$giI:E=-.i.;J6l;3J;;r"3:ii:3('::'i:a lrll lt ,l ;:-i!,e;HfiL;d${'3=i*'5 A r,voman lvalks past the NYPD s Tirnes Scluarer statiort. tncic Gelly lrnages Insisting l-re's no racist, whistleblo"ver cop, Adrian Schoolcraft is accusing a top NYPD superuisor of "maliciously" claiming he used the N-word to bolster a bitter legal fi8;ht' Sciroolcraft asked N4anhattan federal Jr-rdge Robert Street last rr.eek to lemove a controversial sentence fron-r a Nlarch countersnit filed against hinl bv Deputy Inspector n\Dorrcon1l0l.10-1 1J\hrstlchl.^\er-coD-suDcr\iso' maJe-!D rrc st-ouote'for le!'^l'figh/ Steven N{auriello. The sentence quotes Schoolcraft as saying that ofltcers at tl-Ie 81 s't Precinct in Brookll,n, u,hi cl-r NlanrieLIo pre,,'iously commallded, "iust worked together, so n,e rrotrldrr't have to'"r,ork r.r'ith anv n---s." 1n an Apr:il T legal ,,liling, Schoolcralt's ialr,1'91. Nathaniel Sr.nith, claimed that the r.acist contntents in tl-re counter-suit rr'ere "maliciollsl\: inseltecl rr ithout arrr legitimate pLlrllosr:." \ Iauriello's ar,r1rsr, \'\/alter I(rct:z, sEtid Siur-rda that Schoolclaft \\ ils "llot tnisquoted and rorres Schoolcraft used the t.her e is notl.ring alleged malicioLrslr'.l i--> 1 ,,. )lLu. .- 1 , l ntillion counterclaim. \.lauriello alleges Schoolcraft drunrrned up bogrts cornplaints about r.r'rongdoing at the 81st becaus;e he n,anted to punish his ex coururauder. He flled the coluttersuit in response to a $.50 niillion lawsuit Schoolcraft filed clainting he was fbrced to spend time in a mental ward after sayil'rg cops at the 8 Lst fudged crime stats. ln i.ris S2 I, NYPtl, WHISTLEBLOWER5 Hundreds mourn fallen... YOU MIGHT AI,'O ITKE --f- .'l' ,,-''"- -{ {

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?