Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 259

REPLY . Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Smith, Nathaniel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,

-against-

Plaintiff,

10-cv-6005 (RWS)
REPLY

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel, hereby replies to the Counterclaims (Dkt. #
231) filed by Defendant Steven Mauriello as follows:
1.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims, except admits

that Defendant Mauriello purports to assert the legal conclusion set forth therein.
2.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims, except admits

that Defendant Mauriello purports to assert the claims set forth therein.
3.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims and denies the

characterization of the nature or substance of the recording referenced therein and
respectfully refers the Court to the recording for its contents.
4.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims and denies the

characterization of the nature or substance of the recording referenced therein and
respectfully refers the Court to the recording for its contents.
5.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims and denies the

characterization of the nature or substance of the recording referenced therein and

1

respectfully refers the Court to the recording for its contents.
6.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims and denies the

characterization of the nature or substance of the recording referenced therein and
respectfully refers the Court to the recording for its contents.
7.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims.

8.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims.

9.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims and

respectfully refers the Court to the various documents referenced vaguely therein for
their content.
10.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Counterclaims.

11.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Counterclaims.

12.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Counterclaims.

13.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims.

14.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Counterclaims.

15.

Denies the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

16.

The Counterclaims fail to state a plausible or a cognizable claim for

17.

The Counterclaims fail to state with specificity the allegedly injurious or

relief.

defamatory statements alleged therein.

2

18.

The Counterclaims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and

are also barred by the undue delay by Defendant Mauriello in filing the Counterclaims
such that he is guilty of laches.
19.

The Counterclaims are barred by prior findings against Defendant

Mauriello, which operates to preclude him under the doctrine of issue preclusion or
claim preclusion from raising the issues asserted in the Counterclaims.
20.

The Counterclaims are insufficient as a matter of law and fact because

Defendant Mauriello suffered no cognizable damages as a result of anything that
Plaintiff said or did.
21.

Plaintiff at all relevant times acted within the scope of his duties as a

Police Officer and in the proper and lawful performance of those duties.
22.

Any injury or damage allegedly sustained by Defendant Mauriello

was caused by his own culpable conduct or the culpable conduct of others, and was
not caused or contributed to by plaintiff.
23.

Plaintiff at all times acted reasonably, properly, with probable cause and

in good faith in connection with the performance of his duties and is shielded and
protected from suit under the doctrines of absolute, qualified, and/or common law
immunity.
24.

The Counterclaims should be dismissed because they fail to plead, and the

Defendant cannot show or prove, special damages.

3

25.

The actions by the plaintiff that Defendant Mauriello claims caused him

damages were taken by the plaintiff by lawful and proper means.
26.

Any and all action taken or not taken by Defendant Mauriello’s employer,

or any other person with whom he alleges his relationship was damaged, would have
taken place or not taken place, notwithstanding anything that the plaintiff said or did, or
is alleged to have said or did, with respect to Defendant Mauriello.
Wherefore, the plaintiff demands that judge be entered in his favor and against
the Counterclaims and that the plaintiff be awarded his costs and expenses, including
attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
May 28, 2014

s/NBS
__________________________
Nathaniel B. Smith
111 Broadway – Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

4