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)
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
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?