Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
291
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 290 MOTION to Amend/Correct . . Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Tracked Changes of Third Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit City Defendants Letter, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 171, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 70, # 7 Exhibit Bernier Transcript, # 8 Exhibit Isakov Transcript, # 9 Exhibit Dhar Transcript)(Smith, Nathaniel)
EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHE 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 STEVEN WEISS Id. No. 924615;
LIEUTENANT RAFELA MASCOL, Id. No. 901927,
SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004, Individually and
in her Official Capacity,, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, Tax Id.
899922, Individually and in his Official Capacity, 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 ALDANABERNIER, Individually and in her Official Capacity and JAMAICA
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE'S "JOHN DOE"# 150, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe
being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown),
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(
THIRD
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
to cy 6oos
.UJRYTRIAL
DEMANDED
ECFCASE
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT by his attorneys, complaining of the defendants,
respectfully allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Plaintiff brings this action for compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for violations of his civil
rights, as said rights are secured by said statutes and the Constitutions of the State of New York
and the United States.
2.
This action seeks redress for a coordinated and concentrated effort by high
ranking officials within the New York City Police Department (hereinafter "NYPD") to silence,
intimidate, threaten and retaliate against plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, for his
documentation and disclosure of corruption with the NYPD. Specifically, that the NYPD had
established an illegal quota policy for the issuance of summonses and arrests and that defendants
were falsifying and instructing police officers to suborn perjury on police reports in order to
distort COMPSTAT statistics. In order to prevent disclosure of these illegal and unconstitutional
acts, which would have revealed rampant NYPD corruption, defendants unlawfully entered
plaintiffs home, had him forcibly removed in handcuffs, seized his personal effects, including
evidence he had gathered documenting NYPD corruption and had him admitted to Jamaica
Hospital Center against his will, under false and perjurious information that plaintiff was
"emotionally disturbed." Thereafter, defendant officers conspired with Jamaica Hospital Center
personnel to have plaintiff involuntarily committed in its psychiatric ward for six (6) days, all in
an effort to tarnish plaintiffs reputation and discredit his allegations should he succeed in
disclosing evidence of widespread corruption within the NYPD.
2
.DJRISDICTION
3.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is
founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
YENUE
4.
Venue is properly laid in the Southern District of New York under U.S.C. §
1391(c), in that the defendant City of New York is a municipal corporation that resides in the
Southern District of New York. .
.JURY DEMAND
5.
Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT is a male, a citizen of the United
States, and at all relevant times a resident of the City and State of New York.
7.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
8.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK maintains the New York City Police
Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform
all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State
Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned
municipal corporation, City ofNew York.
3
9.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendants
DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, ASST. CHIEF GERALD NELSON, DEPUTY
INSPECTOR
STEVEN
MAURIELLO,
CAPTAIN
THEODORE
LAUTERBORN,
LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM
GOUGH,
SERGEANT FREDERICK
SAWYER,
SERGEANT
KURT
DUNCAN, SERGEANT STEVEN WEISS, LIEUTENANT RAFEL A. MASCOL,
LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART, , CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, and
P.O.'s "JOHN DOE" #1-50 were duly sworn police officers of said department and were
acting under the supervision of said department and according to their official duties.
10.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the NYPD defendants, either
personally or through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in
compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or
practices ofthe State or City ofNew York.
11.
Each and all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alleged herein were done
by said defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by defendant THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.
12.
Each and all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alleged herein were done
by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK.
13.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendant
LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON was a duly sworn lieutenant with the New York City Fire
4
'.
Department ("FDNY") and was acting under the supervlSlon of said department and
according to her official duties.
14.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the FDNY defendant, was acting
under color of state law and/or in compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws,
statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New York.
15.
Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defendant alleged herein were done by
said defendant while acting within the scope of her employment by defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK.
16.
Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defendant alleged herein were done by
said defendant while acting in furtherance of her employment by defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK.
17.
Defendant the JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter
"JHMC") is a privately owned hospital located at 8900 Van Wyck Expressway, Jamaica,
New York, 11418 and performs all functions of a hospital.
18.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, JHMC, was a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York.
19.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant JHMC owned, operated,
managed and controlled a certain hospital for the treatment of the sick and ailing in the
County of Queens, State ofNew York, and as such held itself out as duly qualified to render
proper and adequate hospital service for the treatment of the sick and ailing in the County
of Queens, State of New York, and as such held itself out as duly qualified to render proper
and adequate hospital, medical and surgical services to members of the general public,
i"
I.
j
5
including plaintiff.
20.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. ISAK ISAKOV,
was a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York, and as such
held himself out as duly qualified to render proper and adequate medical services to
members of the general public, including plaintiff.
21.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. ISAK ISAKOV was
the attending physician of the Psychiatric Department of JHMC, and was an employee,
agent, servant and/or independent contractor retained by JHMC to render medical
services, care and treatment patients seeking medical care at JHMC.
22.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. LILIAN ALDANA-
BERNIER, was a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York,
and as such, held herself out as duly qualified to render proper and adequate medical
services to members of the general public, including plaintiff.
23.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. LILIAN ALDANA-
BERNIER was the admitting physician of the Psychiatric Department of JHMC, and
was an employee, agent, servant and/or independent contractor retained by JHMC to render
medical services, care and treatment patients seeking medical care at JHMC.
24.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants JHMC EMPLOYEE'S
"JOHN DOE" # 1-50 were working for and were acting under the supervision of JHMC
according to their official duties.
6
'
~
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's Exemplary Career In the U.S. Navy and NYPD
25.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT is a New York City Police Officer and
has been employed by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") since July, 2002.
26.
Prior to the events set forth below, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
was a decorated New York City police officer and United States Navy veteran.
27.
From 1993 to 1997, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT served honorably in
the United States Navy.
28.
During this time, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT received several
commendations, including the "National Defense Service Medal" and the "First Good
Conduct Medal."
29.
After
four
years
of
distinguished
service,
plaintiff
ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT received an honorable discharge from the United States Navy on July 22,
1997.
30.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, , decided to join the New York City
Police Department in July 2002.
31.
About a year after joining the NYPD, plaintiff began working at the 81 st
Precinct, where he remained until October 31, 2009.
32.
In total, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT worked for six years at the 81 st
33.
During this time, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was a patrol officer at
Precinct.
the 81 st Precinct.
34.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was often sought out by other police
7
officers for his knowledge, experience and sound judgment in handling difficult work situations.
35.
In his seven year career with the NYPD, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
had an exemplary record and in fact received multiple commendations for his work as a
police officer.
36.
For example, On October 28, 2006, plaintiffreceived a "Meritorious Police
Duty Medal" for his "outstanding performance" as a police officer.
37.
Similarly, on June 4, 2008, plaintiff received an award from the NYPD for
his "dedication to the New York City Police Department and to the City of New York."
Plaintiff Witnesses Enforcement of an Illegal Quota Policy for Summonses and Arrests
38.
During his time at the 81 st precinct, plaintiff began to observe a pattern
and practice of supervisors enforcing a de facto quota policy requiring police officers to
issue a certain number summons and arrests per month.
39.
Additionally, plaintiff observed that personal performance evaluations were
based on adherence to this quota for summons and arrests, and officers failing to meet the
required amount were subject to work related consequences, such as loss of overtime, tour
changes and denial of vacation days.
40.
Soon after DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO's assignment to
the 81 st precinct, plaintiff and his fellow police officers started to receive explicit threats of
tour transfers, undesirable assignments, poor performance evaluations and other adverse
consequences for failure to meet their monthly arrest and summons quotas.
I
41.
These admonishments to adhere to monthly quotas were repeatedly
emphasized by the defendant officers at the daily roll calls in the 81 st precinct throughout
plaintiffs employment.
8
!
i'
42.
For example, on December 8, 2008, Defendant MAURIELLO berated his
officers for not writing enough summonses per month: "I SEE EIGHT FUCKING
SUMMONSES FOR A 20 DAY PERIOD OR A MONTH. IF YOU MESS UP, HOW THE
HELL DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY YOU?"
43.
Defendant MAURIELLO repeatedly drove home this message, explicitly
threatening to move officers out of their platoons if they did not make their numbers.
For example, on October 28, 2008, MAURIELLO shouted out to his officers:
"IF YOU
DON'T WORK, AND I GET THE SAME NAMES BACK AGAIN, I'M MOVING YOU
YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO ANOTHER PLATOON!"
44.
Defendants' illegal quota policy was enforced not just by Defendant
MAURIELLO, but by other high-ranking members of the 81 st Precinct. For example, on
January 28, 2009, Sergeant Raymond Stukes stated: "I TOLD YOU GUYS LAST MONTH:
THEY ARE LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET
MOVED.
THEY CAN MAKE YOUR JOB REAL UNCOMFORTABLE, AND WE ALL
KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS."
45.
On December 8, 2008, another Sergeant made similar threats: "WHEN I
TELL YOU TO GET YOUR ACTIVITY UP, ITS FOR A REASON, BECAUSE THEY ARE
LOOKING TO MOVE PEOPLE, AND HE'S SERIOUS THERE'S PEOPLE IN HERE
THAT MAY NOT BE HERE NEXT MONTH."
46.
Additionally, on October 18, 2009 another Sergeant made it explicitly clear
to the subordinate officers that "AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS."
Officers Were Being Instructed to Make Arrests and Issue Summonses Without
Probable Cause
47.
In fact, defendants were so obsessed with making their "numbers" that
9
they literally instructed officers to make arrests when there was no evidence of any criminal
activity whatsoever.
48.
For example, on October 31, 2008, Defendant MAURIELLO ordered his officers
to arrest virtually everybody they came in contact with at 120 Chauncey Street in Brooklyn, with
or without probable cause: "EVERYBODY GOES.
I DON'T CARE.
YOU'RE ON 120
CHAUNCEY AND THEY'RE POPPING CHAMPAGNE? YOKE E'M.
PUT THEM
THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THEY GOT BANDANNAS ON, ARREST THEM. EVERYBODY
GOES TONIGHT. THEY'RE UNDERAGE? FUCK IT."
49.
Similar orders were given by a Sergeant on November 23, 2008.
"IF
I.
I
THEY'RE ON A CORNER, MAKE 'EM MOVE. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO MOVE,
LOCK 'EM UP. DONE DEAL.
YOU CAN ALWAYS ARTICULATE [A CHARGE]
LATER."
50.
Thus, police officers at the 81 st Precinct were being instructed to arrest
and summons fully innocent people for crimes that never occurred for nothing more than
standing on a street corner in their neighborhoods and then "articulate" or create a charge later.
NYPD Policy Making Officials Were the Driving Force Behind This Quota and
Policy
51.
Defendants' myopic obsession with quotas came straight from the highest
ranking officials in the New York City Police Department.
52.
For example, Chief of Transportation MICHAEL SCAGNELLI, a three star
Chief, was quoted as saying: "HOW MANY SUPERSTARS AND HOW MANY LOSERS
DO WE HAVE, HOW MANY SUMMONSES DOES THE SQUAD WRITE. WE NEED
MORE ACTIVITY, IF YOUR PRODUCTIVITY FALLS BELOW PAR EITHER YOU OR
THE C.O. IS GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER."
10
I·
53.
Another high-ranking official at the 81 st Precinct, Lieutenant Delafuente,
actually gave specific numbers that must be met by each officer: "[CAPTAIN STARKY]
WANTS AT LEAST 3 SEATBELTS (SUMMONSES), 1 CELL PHONE (SUMMONS) AND
11 OTHERS (SUMMONSES)."
Plaintiff Refuses to Comply with the NYPD's Unlawful Quota Policy, Leading to
Increased Pressure and Scrutiny from His Supervisors
54.
Unlike many of his colleagues, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
refused to issue or to be coerced to issue unwarranted and illegal summonses and arrest
innocent people in the absence of probable cause simply to meet a quota.
55.
As a direct result of this "non-compliance," in January 2009, plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT began to be scrutinized and increasingly pressured by his
supervisors and commanding officer to increase his "ACTIVITY" (i.e. not writing enough
summons and not making enough arrests), or face possible low performance evaluations and
tour/command reassignment.
56.
Specifically, on January 13, 2009, plaintiff was summoned to a meeting with
DEFENDANT MASCOL, who commanded him to increase his "OVERALL ACTIVITY,"
or he would be placed on "PERFORMANCE MONITORING" and be subject to "LOW
QUARTERLY EVALUATIONS."
57.
Further, when plaintiff requested an explanation of the lieutenant's
definition of "ACTIVITY," MASCOL explicitly referenced the need to increase his issuance
of summonses and arrests.
Plaintiff Receives a Poor Evaluation Based On His Low Summons "Activity"
58.
On January 29, 2009, plaintiff did, in fact, receive a poor performance
evaluation as a result of his failure to issue the mandated number of summons and arrests
11
required by his supervisors and Borough chief.
59.
Specifically, plaintiff received an overall rating of 2.5 out of 5.0, despite the
fact that the average of his scores based on the number of categories contained in the
evaluation should have been markedly higher than 2.5.
60.
For example, plaintiffs average for "performance areas" was actually 3.75,
and contained no rating which was less than 3.0. Similarly, plaintiffs average for "behavior
dimensions" was 3.25, still well above the 2.5 rating that he received.
61.
In addition, the balance of the evaluation contained the following prmse
for plaintiff:
P.O. Schoolcraft shows good community interaction by
eliciting information from witnesses and victims. He also
mediates problems between disputing individuals and
provides counseling when families have conflicts. P.O.
Schoolcraft is able to complete arrest forms accurately
and completely [and] is able to fingerprint, photograph and
process all arrest related paperwork.
62.
Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs failure to meet the NYPD summons/arrests
quota which plaintiffs supervisors termed "poor activity" and attributed to plaintiffs
"unwilling[ness] to change his approach to meeting performance standards" was the real
reason why plaintiff received such a poor performance evaluation.
Plaintiff Challenges His Low Work Evaluation, Resulting in Intense Scrutiny By His
Supervisors
63.
Thereafter, plaintiff immediately informed his supervisors of his intention
to appeal his evaluation based on the fact that they had either miscalculated their overall
rating or he had been evaluated on an illegal and unconstitutional basis (i.e. not meeting
arrest/summons quota).
64.
On February 1, 2009, following plaintiffs disclosure of his intention to
12
appeal, a poster that read "IF YOU DON'T LIKE YOUR JOB THEN MAYBE YOU
SHOULD GET ANOTHER JOB" was posted to plaintiff's locker.
65.
On February 3, 2009, Sgt. Meyer, the Squad Sergeant at the 81 st Precinct,
directly pressured plaintiff to increase his summons activity:
"WHY DON'T YOU JUST
CONFORM? THEY WANT A BOOK (20 SUMMONSES), SO EVERYONE WRITES 15
(SUMMONSES). YOU COULD GET AWAY WITH 10 OR 12 (SUMMONSES) AND A
COLLAR (ARREST)."
66.
Following that incident, on February 20, 2009 plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was approached by defendant MASCOL who informed plaintiff that the
only way plaintiff could improve future performance evaluations, was if plaintiff raised his
"ACTIVITY, by writing "MORE SUMMONSES" and being "MORE PROACTIVE."
67.
In response to this ultimatum, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT informed
defendant MASCOL that he would try to improve his activity but that he would not write
illegal summonses or arrest people in the absence of probable cause to believe that a
summonsable or arrestable offense had been committed.
Defendants Attempt To "Strong-Arm" Plaintifflnto Dropping His Appeal
68.
Thereafter, on February 25, 2009, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
commanded to a meeting with all of the supervisors at the 81 st Precinct to discuss the appeal
ofhis evaluation.
69.
The meeting was attended by, amongst others, DEPUTY INSPECTOR
STEVEN MAURIELLO, SERGEANT WEISS, LIEUTENANT DELAFUENTE, CAPTAIN
THEODORE
LAUTERBORN,
LIEUTENANT
RAFAEL
MASCOL,
LIEUTENANT
TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, and SERGEANT RAYMOND STUKES.
13
;--~
70.
During this meeting, the aforementioned supervisors repeatedly attempted to
discourage plaintiff from appealing his performance evaluation and implicitly threatened
plaintiff with retaliation if he pursued the issue.
71.
In addition, in an aggressive, threatening tone, a PBA union official at the
meeting expressed "concern" that the appeal would be reviewed by DEPUTY CHIEF
MICHAEL MARINO and "HE'S GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR EVALUATION, HE MAY
PULL UP ALL YOUR ACTIVITY AND THEN HE'S GOING TO SAY YOU WANT TO
KNOW WHAT YOUR EVALUATION IS? LOOK AT THE ACTIVITY, WHAT ARE YOU
FUCKING KIDDING ME?! KNOWING HIM, HE'S GOING TO TALK A LOT OF SHIT."
72.
In fact, the sole purpose of the meeting was that plaintiff had an
insufficient number of summonses and arrests and as such his evaluation was warranted.
73.
The commanding officers at this meeting repeatedly informed plaintiff
that he could get a higher evaluation if he would raise his activity, but when plaintiff
repeatedly requested an explanation as to the definition of "activity" he was repeatedly
informed he needed to write more summonses and arrests.
74.
Specifically, plaintiff was informed in sum and substance "HOW ARE WE
GOING TO JUDGE SOMEBODY THAT HAS TEN COLLARS THROUGH THE YEAR
AND MAYBE 25 SUMMONSES THROUGH THE YEAR, COMPARED TO SOMEONE
WHO'S GOT 4 COLLARS WITH 14 SUMMONSES THROUGH THE YEAR? THERE'S
GOT
TO
BE
SOME
VARIATION.
THE
SQUAD
SERGEANT
MAKES
A
DETERMINATION WHO HIS TOP GUYS ARE, COMPARED TO HIS LOWER GUYS.
THAT'S HOW IT'S DONE."
75.
Then, in a blatantly transparent act of intimidation, the PBA union officer
14
at the meeting then referenced police officers who had previously been terminated or
transferred as a result of vocalizing objections to their evaluations.
76.
This meeting was an overt attempt to silence plaintiffs appeal because of the
supervisor's prior knowledge of the illegality of issuing substandard performance evaluations - based on an officer's failure to meet a summons quota, which had been firmly established by
the Labor Arbitration Tribunal more than three years earlier.
The NYPD's Quota Policy: Struck Down As Illegal in January 2006
77.
In fact, the NYPD had previously been found to be in violation of New York
State Labor Law Section 215-a, which makes it illegal to issue poor evaluations for an officer's
failure to meet the requirement of an established summons quota. See In the Matter of P.B.A.
and City of New York Case# A-10699-04.
78.
The aforementioned decision was based on Police Officer David Velez's
appeal of his 2005 performance evaluation from the 75th Precinct, which was based
entirely on his failure to meet the minimum summons quota. (ld)
79.
In that matter, P.O. Velez presented evidence that the then Commanding
Officer of the 75th precinct, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, a named defendant in the
instant matter, issued a directive that officers must meet "a quota of 10 (ten) summons per
month" and "that the police officers in squad A-1 received lower marks on their evaluations
if the officers did not meet 'this minimum requirement." (Id at 9).
80.
Additionally, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO reduced this directive to writing
and distributed it to all of the supervisors in the 75th Precinct. (ld)
81.
The aforementioned written directive ordered that supervising officers were
required to evaluate officers based on their adherence to the minimum quota of summonses
15
""
'
and arrests.
Id
82.
As a result of CHIEF MARINO's directive, Sgt. Lurch issued a memo
to all officers in the 75th Precinct "remind[ing] [officers] that a FAILURE TO WRJTE THE
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SUMMONSES AND FAlLURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED
NUMBER
OF
ARREST
FOR
EACH
RATING
PERIOD
WILL
RESULT
IN
SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE RATINGS." (Id at 10).
83.
The aforementioned memo was entitled "Squad Activity Expectations," and
the word "activity" in that memo was specifically referring to the requisite number of
summonses needed to meet the quota, which is unequivocal evidence of the fact that P.O.
SCHOOLCRAFT's own low evaluation in the present matter based on his "poor activity"
directly correlates to non-compliance with an illegal summons/arrest quota.
84.
While defendants denied the existence of any quota, the arbitrator
emphatically rejected defendants' claims:
The Arbitrator finds that C.O. Marino's writing and Sergeant
Lurch's memo could not have been clearer: "failure to write
the required amount of summonses ... will result in substandard
performance ratings ... " Further, the asterisk in the 'goal'
column makes it clear that [these] goals are monthly, quarterly
and yearly. The Arbitrator is completely persuaded that the
"goals" column on this memo meets the definition in Labor
Law Section 215-a for "quota" ... [Thus], the New York Police
Department violated New York State Labor Law Section 215-a
by establishing and maintaining a summons quota ... "
(Id at 10, 27) (emphasi added)
85.
Notwithstanding this finding, the chief perpetrator of this unlawful policy,
MICHAEL MARINO, was subsequently promoted by the NYPD as Deputy Chief of Patrol
Borough Brooklyn North, in charge of supervising the entire Borough, which is also
where the 81 st precinct is located.
16
86.
Given the existence of the aforementioned related appeal and subsequent
decision, it is clear that the February 25, 2009 "meeting" was an obvious effort to prevent
plaintiffs appeal, to avoid the repercussions to defendants which could follow if they were
found to have violated the previous order, and engaged in this illegal quota practice once again.
87.
Furthermore, this "meeting" was an attempt to prevent plaintiff from exposing
the NYPD's pattern and practice of falsifying training logs during roll calls, in which
commanding officers would require patrol officers to sign a log indicating that they had
received training that day on various police subjects, when in fact, they had received no such
training from their supervisors.
Plaintiff Refuses to Drop His Appeal and Instead Directly Challenges the NYPD's
Unlawful Quota Policy
88.
It is clear that the February 25, 2009 "meeting" was an obvious effort to
prevent plaintiffs appeal to avoid the repercussions to defendants which could follow.
89.
Notwithstanding their implicit threats and veiled tactics of intimidation,
plaintiff informed the group that he would pursue the appeal.
90.
Thereafter, on March 11, 2009, plaintiffs counsel, Brown & Gropper,
wrote a letter to defendant MAURIELLO which directly challenged the NYPD's unlawful
quota policy and the use of this policy as a basis for plaintiffs performance evaluation.
Specifically, in this letter, plaintiffs counsel wrote as follows:
We are concerned that our client's negative evaluation is based
not on the factors set forth in Patrol Guide 205-48, but rather
on his alleged lack of "activity" related to his number of arrests
and summons issued. Yet, Patrol Guide 205-48 makes no
reference to "activity" levels. Furthermore, we are unaware of
any Patrol Guide provision which defines how much "activity" is
required to achieve a satisfactory evaluation.
17
i
!.
Plaintiff's Refusal to Drop His Appeal Results in Increased Harassment and
Intimidation by His Superior Officers
91.
As a result of plaintiff's intention to pursue his appeal, plaintiff's
supervisors at the 81 st Precinct began to create an increasingly hostile work environment for
him.
92.
Specifically, on March 16, 2009, defendant CAUGHEY issued plaintiff a
written reprimand for not documenting in his memo book that he had used the bathroom
facility on his assigned post.
93.
Defendant CAUGHEY also confiscated plaintiff's memo book and made a
photocopy of plaintiffs official notes, which documented defendants' previous misconduct,
and more specifically, that of DEFENDANT WEISS.
94.
That same day plaintiff reported the incident to the duty Captain,
defendant LAUTERBORN.
95.
Plaintiff requested that defendant LAUTERBORN document this act of
retaliation against him in a report.
96.
Defendant LAUTERBORN responded to this request in sum and substance:
"WHAT DO YOU WANT TO REPORT? DIDN'T WE TELL YOU WHEN YOU LEFT
HERE THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT MORE SUPERVISION? THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENS ... YOU THINK THAT THIS IS ... YOU KNOW... RETALIATION ... THIS IS
A MATTER OF SUPERVISION."
97.
Defendant LAUTERBORN further warned plaintiff that, after the threat
of a transfer, "THE DEVIL YOU KNOW IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE DEVIL YOU
DON'T," and that from this point onward, plaintiff better "CROSS YOUR I(S) AND DOT
YOUR T(S)."
18
98.
During this conversation, defendant LAUTERBORN informed plaintiff that
he was being carefully monitored because of his "POOR PERFORMANCE" and suggested
that it should not be a surprise now if even minor infractions result in disciplinary action, even
if they had not previously resulted in such action.
99.
Defendant LAUTERBORN further informed plaintiff that he was being
placed on "PERFORMANCE MONITORING" because his "NUMBERS" were not sufficient
and that defendant MAURIELLO was a "FANATIC" about ensuring officers have high
"ACTIVITY," implicitly threatening to transfer plaintiff should he not increase his
"ACTIVITY."
100.
As he had previously informed defendant MAS COL, plaintiff reiterated to
defendant LAUTERBORN that he would work to improve his "ACTIVITY" but refused to
issue illegal summonses or make false arrests absent probable cause of a crime or violation, to
which defendant LAUTERBORN responded by openly mocking plaintiff:
"YOU WANT
TO BE 'MR. COMMUNITY', IS THAT WHAT YOUR DOING?!"
101.
Defendant LAUTERBORN proceeded to provide plaintiff with examples of
situations where plaintiff could make arrests or issue summonses to increase his activity despite
the fact that there had been "NO VIOLATION OF LAW."
102.
Specifically, defendant LAUTERBORN instructed plaintiff to approach and
detain young adults merely for sitting in front of a high crime building, regardless of probable
cause or reasonable suspicion.
103.
Further defendant LAUTERBORN then suggested that were he to hear
one of those individuals curse during this interaction, it would then be appropriate to arrest
them despite having committed "NO VIOLATION OF LAW," because the police cannot
19
appear "SOFT" in these neighborhoods.
Defendants Attempt to Isolate and Separate Plaintiff from His Fellow Officers
104.
In a further effort to intimidate plaintiff, in March of 2009 defendants also
began to isolate plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT from his fellow officers by threatening
and disciplining Police Officer Chan for simply talking to plaintiff.
105.
As a result fellow police officers at the 81 st precinct consistently avoided
plaintiff out of fear that supervisors would retaliate against them.
Defendants Escalate Their Intimidation Tactics by Taking Away Plaintiff's Gun and
Shield
106.
Thereafter, plaintiff learned from P.O. ZUCKER of the
81st
Precinct that
defendants were attempting to execute a scenario portraying plaintiff as being psychologically
unfit to work.
Specifically, on March 16, 2009, defendant WEISS was overheard stating, in
107.
reference to plaintiff: "I'M GOING TO HAVE HIM PSYCHED."
108.
In April of 2009, defendants saw an opportunity to pursue this scheme
when plaintiff had a legitimate health issue.
109.
In furtherance of this plan, plaintiff was required to consult NYPD
psychologist Dr.
Catherine Lamstein for
a psychological evaluation following
an
examination by NYPD police surgeon, Joseph Cuffio, M.D., for chest pains he experienced on
April3, 2009.
110.
During his examination with Dr. Lamstein, plaintiff disclosed the
existence of illegal NYPD policies and practices and other corruption he had observed over the
past couple of years.
111.
At the conclusion of Dr. Lamstein's examination, and immediately following
20
'
~
'
plaintiffs disclosure of rampant corruption within the 81 st Precinct, Dr. Lamstein abruptly
excused herself from the room for several minutes and suddenly returned only to inform
plaintiff that he was required to immediately surrender his gun and shield.
Plaintiff's Appeal Is Suddenly Closed Without His Knowledge or Consent
112.
On April 14, 2009, the following day, plaintiffs performance evaluation
appeal was "coincidentally" and inexplicably closed, without a hearing or notice of any kind
as to the basis of the closure.
113.
It should be noted that while the appeal was closed in fact on April 14,
2009, plaintiff was not informed of that fact at the time and learned of that fact only after he
made inquiries about the status of his appeal.
114.
Despite being denied any information regarding his appeal, plaintiff
continued to relentlessly inquire about the appeal process, when and if a hearing would ever
be scheduled or held, to which NYPD officials repeatedly refused to disclose any information,
and feigned ignorance.
115.
Additionally, plaintiff repeatedly sent letters to the Patrolman's Benevolent
Association (hereinafter "PBA") and their lawyers, in furtherance of pressing his appeal,
to which they repeatedly informed him that they could not help.
Defendants Attempt To Further Isolate and Degrade Plaintiff by Assigning Him to
the
Telephone Switchboard
116.
Thereafter, throughout the summer of 2009, plaintiff continued to be
systematically isolated from the remainder of the precinct in the form of reassignment to
telephone switchboard duty.
117.
While there plaintiff was subjected to overt attempts of intimidation
21
and harassment in the form of fellow police officers and supervising officers referring to him
as a "ZERO" and/or the "HOUSE MOUSE."
118.
Additionally, throughout his reassignment, plaintiff witnessed further
evidence of continued corruption and subornation of perjury on numerous occasions in the
form of officers, commanding and subordinate, falsifying information contained in
complainant crime reports (UF-61 's) and/or failing to issue them altogether in the face of
reported crime.
119.
During the same period, despite having his gun and shield removed due to
his alleged psychological instability and/or concerns for his and his fellow officers' safety,
plaintiff was assigned to voucher loaded weapons and was assigned to handle arrests.
Plaintiff Reports the Corruption He Has Witnessed To Internal Affairs
120.
On August 18, 2009, in response to this campaign of retaliation and
intimidation, plaintiffs father, Larry Schoolcraft, contacted David Durk, a former NYPD
Detective who had assisted Frank Serpico in the 1970s in uncovering corruption within the
NYPD to seek his counsel regarding the proper actions to be taken.
121.
Following that conversation, David Durk contacted Brandon Del Pozo at
the Internal Affairs Bureau ("lAB") to apprise him of the corruption within the 81 st Precinct.
122.
Thereafter, on August 20, 2009 plaintiff contacted lAB directly, by
filing an Unusual Incident Report (UF-49), alleging that defendant CAUGHEY -- ironically
the Integrity Control Officer for the 81 st precinct -- had unlawfully aided defendant Weiss'
entry into a locked office at the precinct and removed potentially damaging documents from
SGT. WEISS' personnel file, all at the behest ofDefendant WEISS.
123.
Specifically, in this report, entitled "CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE
22
INTEGRITY CONTROL PROGRAM OF THE 81 sT PRECINCT", plaintiff alleged as follows:
Sergeant Steven Weiss (Assistant Integrity Control Officer, 81 st
Precinct), assisted by his supervisor, a Lieutenant Timothy
Caughey (Integrity Control Officer, 8( Precinct"), did
intentionally enter, without permission or authority, a locked
office containing sensitive department files, and removed
documents pertaining to Civilian Complaints that were inside
Sgt. Weiss's Department Personnel Folder
[These]
documents were a potential obstacle with regards to Sgt.
Weiss' future Evaluation and Promotion to New York City
Police Lieutenant. Sgt. Weiss has since been promoted to New
York City Police Lieutenant and is no longer assigned to the 81 st
Precinct...It would appear [that] Sgt. Weiss has benefitted greatly
from his action(s).
124.
This complaint was sent directly to Chief Charles V. Campisi, Chief of
the Internal Affairs Bureau, via certified mail on August 20, 2009.
Plaintiff's Superiors Become Aware of Plaintiff's Complaints to Internal Affairs
125.
Almost immediately after informing lAB of these illegal practices and
widespread corruption at the 81 st Precinct, lAB detectives repeatedly left messages for
plaintiff at the 81 st Precinct, despite the explicit duty of lAB to keep such complaints
confidential, effectively and implicitly alerting plaintiffs superiors that he was now
communicating with lAB on investigations, criminal in nature, concerning the 81 st Precinct.
126.
On September 2, 2009, plaintiff sent a written request to defendant
STEVEN MAURIELLO requesting in writing that the appeal of his evaluation be sent directly to
the Patrol Borough Brooklyn North immediately.
127.
Not only did defendant STEVEN MAURIELLO fail to issue any response to
this request, but he had never even previously sent the appeal -- as he was mandated to -- nor
did he ever inform plaintiff that his appeal had been closed in April, despite plaintiffs
repeated inquiries.
23
Plaintiff Reveals· Rampant Illegal Conduct At the 81 st Precinct to the Quality
Assurance Division of the NYPD
128.
Thereafter, on October 7, 2009, during the course of a three hour meeting with
the Quality Assurance Division ("QAD"), plaintiff described in detail repeated instances of
police misconduct he had witnessed in the 81 st Precinct, including but not limited to,
commanding and supervising officers' manipulation of crime statistics and enforcement of
illegal quota policies.
129.
In that meeting plaintiff discussed, inter alia, the illegal quota policy and the
underreporting, manipulation and/or falsification of crime reports made to NYPD officials in
the 81 st Precinct.
130.
Specifically, plaintiff reported at least thirteen instances where crimes were
being underreported in order to avoid index crime classification- i.e. Felony Grand Larceny and
Robbery underreported to reflect Misdemeanor Lost Property, etc.
131.
Further, in order to accomplish these ends, the allegations of crime reports
had actually been manipulated by supervising officers and in some cases were never
documented at all by the NYPD.
132.
On October 14, 2009, one week following the aforesaid meeting with
QAD, plaintiff was officially placed on performance monitoring by the employee management
i
I
division of the NYPD.
133.
On October 19, 2009, in an increasingly desperate attempt to suppress
plaintiffs disclosure of the corruption and deceptive practices plaguing the 81 st Precinct,
defendant CAUGHEY issued a precinct-wide personnel memo to all personnel of the 81 st
Precinct ordering any and all calls from lAB be first directed to his office, regardless of the
specific officer lAB was attempting to contact.
24
I
i
134.
On October 21, 2009, plaintiff was interviewed by telephone by members
of the "Group I" Internal Affairs Bureau regarding his allegations of misconduct against
defendants CAUGHEY and WEISS.
135.
On October 21, 2009, with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs safety and
welfare, lAB attempted to contact plaintiff to discuss the substance of the UF -49 he had filed
against defendant CAUGHEY on August 20, 2009, a call which was routed first to defendant
CAUGHEY who was also the subject of the complaint.
Plaintiff Continues to Pursue His Appeal But To No Avail
136.
Thereafter on October 28, 2009, plaintiff contacted SGT DEVINO to
arrange a meeting regarding the status of his appeal.
137.
At this meeting SGT DEVINO informed plaintiff that she was ignorant to
the status of plaintiffs appeal and feigned sentiments of surprise and disbelief that the process
was still ongoing.
138.
Thereafter,
plaintiffs
father,
Larry
Schoolcraft,
contacted
Mayor
Bloomberg's office to report the repeated and continuing instances of corruption within the
81 st Precinct, to which plaintiff had bore witness, and to inquire as to the reason plaintiff was
being deprived the right to appeal his performance evaluation.
On October 31, 2009 Plaintiff is Menaced at Work by Lt. Caughey, Whom Plaintiff
Had Previously Reported to Internal Affairs
139.
Thereafter, on October 31, 2009, upon commencement of his tour of duty,
defendant CAUGHEY asked to "scratch" or inspect plaintiffs memo book and when plaintiff
complied, defendant CAUGHEY confiscated the memo book.
140.
Upon confiscation of his memo book, defendant CAUGHEY proceeded to
lock himself in a room for three hours in order to make copies of plaintiffs notes contained
25
therein, which at this point now included specific instances of the corruption and illegal activity
plaintiff had documented in preparation for his report to Commissioner Kelly.
141.
Following defendant CAUGHEY's confiscation of plaintiffs memo book,
defendant CAUGHEY began to exhibit menacing and threatening behavior towards plaintiff.
142.
Specifically, defendant CAUGHEY with one hand near his gun, made
continuous menacing gestures directed at plaintiff in an apparent response to the evidence of
corruption contained within plaintiff's memo book implicating defendants.
Plaintiff Leaves Work One Hour Early After Receiving Permission To Do So From
Sgt. Huffman
143.
Thereafter, at approximately 12:15 p.m. on October 31, 2008, Plaintiff was
advised by civilian employee P .A.A. Boston, who had become aware of defendant
CAUGHEY's increasingly threatening behavior, that plaintiffs safety may be in jeopardy.
144.
As a result of this admonishment and plaintiffs independent observations,
plaintiffs fear consequently manifested itself in feelings of sickness, at which time plaintiff
elected to go home rather than subject himself to potential physical harm from defendant
CAUGHEY.
145.
At approximately 2:45 p.m. on October 31, 2009, less than one hour
before his tour was scheduled to end, plaintiff sought permission to take sick leave, which he
submitted to SERGEANT RASHEENA HUFFMAN.
146.
In
respon~e
to plaintiffs request, SERGEANT HUFFMAN approved
plaintiffs release, but following plaintiffs departure, HUFFMAN subsequently and without
reason rescinded her approval.
147.
Immediately upon plaintiffs arrival at his home, plaintiff contacted lAB to
report defendant CAUGHEY's threatening behavior.
26
148.
Thereafter, plaintiff, fearful of the impending retaliatory acts to follow,
contacted his father, Larry Schoolcraft, to report and document what had just transpired, after
which plaintiff attempted to sleep in an effort to alleviate his feelings of illness.
149.
While asleep, plaintiff received a voicemail message on his phone from
Dr. Lamstein --who had last seen plaintiff on October 27, 2009, and who knew first-hand that
plaintiff had no psychiatric disorders whatsoever -- who was clearly bewildered as to why
defendants required plaintiff to return to command, despite her repeated advisements to
plaintiff's supervisors that in her medical and professional opinion, plaintiff posed no threat to
himself or others.
Dr. Lamstein nevertheless admonished plaintiff, presumably at
defendants' direction, that if he did not return immediately, this would "[BLOW] UP TO A
MUCH BIGGER MESS THAN [PLAINTIFF] WOULD WANT."
The NYPD Threatens a "City-Wide Search" For PlaintifflfHe Does Not Return To Work
150.
Additionally, on about or in between the aforesaid correspondence,
defendant LAUTERBORN contacted Larry Schoolcraft inquiring as to plaintiff's whereabouts.
151.
In response, at approximately 7:40 p.m. on October 31, 2009, Larry
Schoolcraft returned the call and explained to defendant LAUTERBORN that he had
communicated with his son who had informed him that he was at home, feeling sick and
wanted to rest, to which defendant LAUTERBORN responded in sum and substance
"[SHOULD PLAINTIFF NOT RETURN TO THE 81 st PRECINCT], THIS IS GOING TO
GET TO BE A LARGE SCALE EVENT ... WHEN THE BELLS AND WHISTLES GO OFF
ITS GOING TO BE A CITY WIDE SEARCH FOR ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT."
152.
Following that statement, Larry Schoolcraft inquired as to the urgency of
Adrian's return to the 81 51 Precinct that same day, to which defendant LAUTERBORN gave
27
no legitimate explanation and instead, in an increasingly threatening manner, advised
plaintiffs father that things were going to escalate should plaintiff not return immediately to
the 81 st Precinct.
Defendants Unlawfully Enter Plaintiff's Home and Illegally Seize Him in Order to
Prevent Him From Disclosing to the Public His Findings of Corruption
153.
Thereafter, on October 31, 2009 at approximately 9:38 p.m., plaintiff, who
was lawfully present inside of his home located at 8260 881h Place, Apt. 2L, Glendale, NY
11385, was confronted with approximately ten (10) armed high ranking police officers,
including but not limited to, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, , and STEVEN MAURIELLO,
who unlawfully entered his home without a warrant, permission, or other legally permissible
reason to do so.
154.
In addition, at least two members of the Emergency Services Unit-dressed
in full riot gear with helmets on and guns drawn -also illegally entered plaintiffs apartment.
155.
Upon defendants' unlawful entry into plaintiffs home, the aforementioned
defendants ordered plaintiff to get dressed and commanded him to return to the 81 st
Precinct without any legitimate or lawful explanation.
156.
In a remarkable display of calmness under the circumstances, plaintiff
repeatedly and composedly requested the reasons why defendants were unlawfully in his
home commanding him back to the 81 st Precinct against his will, to which defendants
pretextually responded that they were "worried" and "concerned" for plaintiffs safety and
wellbeing despite plaintiffs repeated assurances that he was merely feeling sick and not in any
way a danger to himself or others and despite the fact that plaintiffs own NYPD appointed
psychologist had previously informed defendants that same day that any such fears were
medically unfounded.
28
157.
Immediately thereafter, plaintiff was informed that he was under suspension
for leaving work early that day.
158.
Further, plaintiff expressly acknowledged that were there work related
consequences for his departure, defendants should simply follow the normal protocol and file
the proper paperwork to which plaintiff would respond accordingly.
Defendants Threaten To Treat Plaintiff as an "Emotionally Disturbed Person" If He
Does Not Leave His Apartment "Voluntarily"
159.
Despite plaintiffs overwhelmingly reasonable response, which was in total
and utter compliance with NYPD protocol and practice, defendants responded with a
continued refusal to leave plaintiffs home, subsequently ordering him while armed, to the
hospital illegally and against his will, to which plaintiff responded by repeatedly asserting his
rights under New York law to refuse unwanted medical treatment.
160.
In retaliation to plaintiffs assertion of his rights, and with the knowledge
that plaintiff potentially possessed evidence of defendants' criminal activity and corruption,
defendant MICHAEL MARINO responded with the following ultimatum: "YOU HAVE A
CHOICE. YOU GET UP LIKE A MAN AND PUT YOUR SHOES ON AND WALK
INTO THAT BUS [ambulance], OR THEY'RE GOING TO TREAT YOU AS AN E.D.P.
[emotionally disturbed person] AND THAT MEANS HANDCUFFS."
161.
Immediately thereafter, a series of verbal exchanges occurred between
plaintiff and defendant CHIEF MARINO, in which plaintiff calmly and repeatedly expressed
to defendants that he was refusing any more medical attention and refused to be involuntarily
removed from his home.
162.
Aware that his attempts to threaten and coerce plaintiff into complicity with
defendants' unlawful scheme to otherwise silence plaintiff were futile, defendant CHIEF
29
MICHAEL MARINO impatiently stated in sum and substance: "ALL RIGHT, JUST
TAKE HIM, I CAN'T FUCKING STAND HIM ANYMORE" and commanded that the
police officers present at the location to forcibly take plaintiff into custody.
163.
At all relevant times on October 31, 2009, defendant CHIEF GERALD
NELSON was aware of defendant MARINO's actions and in fact, expressly authorized
defendant MARINO to unlawfully enter plaintiffs residence, remove plaintiff against his will,
and involuntarily confine plaintiff in a psychiatric ward.
164.
Upon information and belief the NYPD alleged defendant LIEUTENANT
ELISE HANLON also intentionally (and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants) falsely
classified plaintiff as an "Emotionally Disturbed Person" in order to effectuate plaintiffs
involuntary removal from his home.
165.
Upon information and belief defendant LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON
also intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants ordered and/or authorized
plaintiff be taken into EMS custody as an "Emotionally Disturbed Person."
166.
Upon information and belief defendant LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON
also intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants provided JAMAICA
HOSPITAL with false information regarding plaintiffs classification as an "Emotionally
Disturbed Person," in order to effectuate plaintiffs involuntary confinement.
Plaintiff Is Violently Attacked and Forcibly Removed From His Own Home against
His Will
167.
Immediately thereafter,
several
defendant police
officers,
including
defendants LT. WILLIAM GOUGH, SGT. KURT DUNCAN, and LT. CHRISTOPHER
BROSCHART, pulled plaintiff out of his bed, physically assaulted him, tore his clothes as they
threw him to the floor, illegally strip-searched him and violently handcuffed him with his
30
arms behind his back, causing excruciating pain to his wrists, shoulders, arms, neck and back.
168.
With plaintiff bound on the floor, alluding to the option plaintiff had been
given of ignoring corruption and illegality, defendant CHIEF MARINO walked over to him
and put his boot on plaintiffs face, and thereafter stated: "IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE
THIS."
169.
Defendant CHIEF MARINO then sat on plaintiffs bed as his officers,
following his commands, illegally searched plaintiffs body and recovered a digital recorder
that plaintiff was holding.
incident,
Afraid of what plaintiff might have recorded during this
defendant CHIEF MARINO illegally seized the recorder himself, stating
contemptuously that plaintiff was "BEING CUTE" by trying to record the incident.
170.
Additionally, NYPD spokesperson Paul J. Browne was present outside of
plaintiffs apartment during the aforementioned illegal home invasion on October 31, 2009,
for the sole purpose of providing to any potential members of the media who might be present
during this abduction a false and misleading account of the facts and circumstances
surrounding plaintiffs involuntary confinement.
Defendants Conduct an Illegal Search of Plaintiff's Apartment, Seizing Evidence of
Misconduct by the NYPD
171.
Thereafter, defendants illegally searched plaintiffs home and illegally seized
substantial evidence of corruption within the 81 st Precinct which plaintiff had gathered
detailing the enforcement of illegal quotas and the perjurious manipulation of police reports, as
well as plaintiffs notes regarding his complaints against the 81 st precinct.
172.
Specifically, defendants illegally seized a draft of his Report to the Police
Commissioner, Raymond Kelly, entitled "A Patrolman's Report to the Commissioner," and
details of his collaboration with retired New York City Police Detective/Lieutenant David
31
Durk. as well as the aforementioned digital tape recorder.
173.
In fact, plaintiffs landlord specifically observed defendants leave plaintiffs
apartment carrying multiple manila folders in their hands.
174.
Following defendants' illegal entry, search and seizure of plaintiffs home,
person and effects, plaintiff was then placed in restraints and carried from his home against
his will by several armed members of the NYPD in full view of all persons at the
scene on the street.
Defendants Make Blatantly False and Misleading Statements to the Hospital, Resulting
in Plaintiffs Confinement in the Psychiatric Ward
175.
Thereafter, defendants transported plaintiff involuntarily to the Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center, in an intentional and premeditated fashion and convinced doctors to
have plaintiff involuntarily admitted as an emotionally disturbed person.
176.
Specifically defendants falsely claimed that plaintiff "LEFT WORK EARLY
AFTER GETTING AGITATED AND CURSING HIS SUPERVISOR" and that the police
"FOLLOWED HIM HOME AND HE HAD BARRICADED HIMSELF, AND THE
DOOR HAD TO BE BROKEN TO GET TO HIM."
177.
It should be noted that the aforementioned false and perjured statements
were emphatically proven false by plaintiffs landlord, who provided information that
plaintiffs door was never forcibly entered, but in fact the landlord had provided keys to
defendant MARINO in response to the false pretense provided by defendants that plaintiff was
"suicidal."
178.
Further, defendants also falsely claimed that plaintiff"INITIALL Y AGREED
TO GO WITH THEM FOR EVALUATION, BUT ONCE OUTSIDE, HE RAN AND HAD
TO BE CHASED."
32
179.
These statements were also proven to be demonstrably false by EMT
records, which clearly and flatly refute defendants' claims that plaintiff "ran" away and
"had to be chased".
180.
At no point on October 31, 2009 did plaintiff exhibit or engage in any of
the behavior that defendants' falsely alleged in order to secure plaintiffs involuntary
confinement.
Plaintiff Is Handcuffed and Restrained in the Emergency Room, Where He is
Denied Fundamental Rights and Treated as a Criminal
181.
After his arrival to Jamaica Hospital, plaintiff was handcuffed to a gurney
for more than nine hours, during which time he was denied the free use of phone, or reasonable
access to water, food or bathroom facilities.
182.
When, on one occasion plaintiff was allowed to make a phone call at
approximately 6:00 a.m., one of the NYPD members watching over him, DEFENDANT
SAWYER, said out loud: "HEY, I THOUGHT PERPS WEREN'T ALLOWED TO USE THE
PHONE." Thereafter, DEFENDANT SAWYER forcibly disconnected the phone and hung it
up, thereby instantly terminating plaintiffs phone call.
183.
SGT. SAWYER then said "OKAY, NOW!", at which point SGT. SAWYER,
assisted by other members of the New York City Police department-including SGT.
SHANTEL JAMES, P.O. RAYMOND MILLER and P.O. ARTHUR SADOWSKI,-forcibly
grabbed plaintiffs hair, head and body, and threw him back on top of the gurney which he
had been standing next to when making the phone call. SGT. SAWYER then stated "This
is what happens to rats" and placed a second handcuff on plaintiffs left hand so tightly that
it caused excruciating pain, and caused his hand to tum blue.
Plaintiff Spends Three Full Days In The Emergency Room of the Psychiatric Ward
33
184.
From October 31, 2009 through November 2, 2009, plaintiff was
involuntarily confined in the medical and psychiatric emergency rooms of Jamaica Hospital.
185.
While there plaintiff was kept involuntarily confined with other psychiatric
patients in a room that had no windows and was secured by double locked sequential doors,
with a security guard present at all times standing outside.
186.
While in the JHMC emergency room, plaintiff was forced to relinquish all of
his clothing and personal possessions. The only clothing plaintiff was given was a hospital
gown. He was not even allowed to wear underwear.
187.
Further, during the first three days in the hospital, plaintiff was not even
given a bed to sleep in. Rather, he was forced to sleep every night on a gurney located in the
hallway of the emergency room of the psychiatric ward. As a result, there were always
lights on and plaintiff had no privacy whatsoever.
18 8.
Most importantly, during this time, plaintiff was denied p h y s i c a 1
access to the outside world. Plaintiff repeatedly requested an opportunity to speak with
internal affairs, and to have photographs taken of his multiple bruises, but these requests were
steadfastly ignored by doctors and hospital staff as well as NYPD personnel until sometime 48
hours or more after the assault on plaintiff at his home on October 31, 2009.
189.
After three days, plaintiff was formally admitted into the psychiatric
ward at JHMC, where he spent the remainder of his confinement.
190.
For the duration of his involuntary hospitalization, plaintiff was forced to
cohabit with individuals who had severe psychiatric disorders and engaged in bizarre and
unsettling behavior.
191.
For example, one patient routinely combed his hair with feces, while
34
another patient continuously walked around the unit wearing bloody bandages on his wrists and
neck.
192.
Additionally, while in the medical emergency room another patient
tried repeatedly and persistently to induce herself to vomit, which she succeeded in doing
right near plaintiff. Still other patients in the hospital's psychiatric emergency room would
routinely scream and yell until they were forcibly sedated.
193.
There were no clocks in the unit, nor were there any mirrors.
Plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was completely cut off from the outside world, and there was
nothing he could do it about it.
Plaintiff's Involuntary Confinement Continues for Six Full Days, in Clear Violation of
NewYorkLaw
194.
For six full days, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was confined
against his will at Jamaica Hospital.
195.
This confinement was unlawful, illegal and in clear violation of both New
York law and the Constitution ofthe United States.
196.
There was no medical or psychiatric basis whatsoever for detaining plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT.
197.
To the contrary, hospital records make clear that plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was at all times, lucid, rational and fully coherent and exhibited no signs
whatsoever of presenting a danger to himself or to others. In fact as defendant ISAKOV
himself noted:
During the observation in the unit without taking any
medications, patient was appropriate in interaction, calm and
not agitated. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideations. He
was not experiencing any paranoid ideations, but was concerned
about issues in the precinct. After observation for a few days on
35
the unit, there were no significant psychiatric symptoms to treat
with medications.
198.
In fact, from the very outset, when plaintiff was first examined at JHMC, it
was manifestly clear that plaintiff was not in need of any psychiatric treatment, much less
involuntary confinement in a psychiatric ward. As the hospital itself noted about plaintiff:
He is coherent, relevant with goal directed speech and good
eye contact. He is irritable with appropriate affect. He denies
hallucination ... He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation
at the present time. His memory and concentration is intact.
He is alert and oriented ....
199.
Plaintiffs clear mental state was so obvious that one of the doctors who
initially examined plaintiff stated out loud that it was "ridiculous" that he was even
brought to the hospital, and assured plaintiff that he would be going home shortly.
200.
Notwithstanding this fact, and despite the objective medical evidence
documenting that plaintiff did not meet the psychological criteria of an emotionally
disturbed patient requiring confinement, plaintiff remained unlawfully and involuntarily
detained without any justification for six (6) days.
201.
Additionally, plaintiff was denied the right to vote on November 3, 2009,
despite repeated requests to do so, a fact that is even documented in the medical records of
JHMC.
202.
On November6, 2009, plaintiff was suddenly deemed safe, despite no
change in plaintiffs prior behavior, and released from Jamaica Hospital.
203.
In detaining plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT against his will, defendant
JHMC violated the express provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a).
This statute
provides, inter alia, that a patient may not be detained against his will unless there is either 1)
a "substantial risk of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide
36
or other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself'' or 2) "a substantial risk of
physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which
others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm."
204.
Additionally,
defendant
ALDANA-BERNIER
violated
the
express
provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a) when she failed to perform the necessary
tests and examinations in order to determine that plaintiff was either 1) a "substantial risk of
physical harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide or other conduct
demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself'' or 2) "a substantial risk of physical harm to
other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed
in reasonable fear of serious physical harm."
205.
Further, defendant ALDANA-BERNIER falsified hospital reports in order
to secure plaintiffs continued confinement in the psychiatric ward when she noted "PATIENT
IS A DANGER TO HIMSELF," without performing any medical test to substantiate this.
206.
As defendant JHMC's own records make clear, neither of these criteria was
even remotely satisfied. Accordingly, defendants' continued detention of plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was a gross violation of legal, medical and ethical standards, and as such,
was a clear departure from good and accepted medical practices.
207.
Finally, as a final insult, following his release from JHMC, plaintiff
actually received a bill in the amount of $7,185.00 for his involuntary confinement, for
which JHMC actually collected money.
The NYPD's Crucial Role In Ensuring Plaintiff's Continued Detention At Jamaica
Hospital
208.
Upon information and belief, all of the aforementioned acts up to and
including plaintiff's involuntary confinement were part of a deliberate, concentrated and
37
premeditated effort to silence plaintiff and intimidate any other members of the NYPD who
sought to disclose the plague of corruption and illegalities within the department.
209.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants entered plaintiffs
horne on October 31, 2009 and illegally seized plaintiff and evidence of NYPD corruption and
misconduct plaintiff had previously gathered.
210.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants conspired to, and did
intentionally falsify evidence and submitted it to JHMC staff for the sole purpose of
having plaintiff committed to its psychiatric ward in an effort to silence, intimidate, threaten or
otherwise deem plaintiff incredible should the evidence of corruption and misconduct
within plaintiffs possession ever surface.
211.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants maintained contact
with JHMC for the six (6) days to ensure that plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT remained
at the hospital, and did so for the sole purpose of ensuring that JHMC continued to detain
plaintiff.
212.
In fact, when questioned by plaintiff about his release date, defendant
ISAKOV responded that he "WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE [POLICE] DEPARTMENT
FIRST" before he could answer that question and tell plaintiff when he would be released.
213.
In allowing the NYPD to dictate the medical policy at JHMC, and in utterly
disregarding the legal requirements of Mental Hygiene law § 9.39(a) by ignoring objective
medical evidence that plaintiff was not a danger to himself or others, defendant JHMC
departed from good and accepted medical practice by unlawfully and involuntarily confining
plaintiff for six days.
214.
Additionally, defendant JHMC, m furtherance of its agreement and
38
conspiracy with NYPD officials, explicitly and/or tacitly formed an agreement to involuntarily
confine plaintiff despite objective medical evidence mandating his release, as a "favor" to
defendant officers in furtherance of their scheme to ultimately silence plaintiff and/or
otherwise impeach his credibility.
Defendants' Egregious Conduct Forces Plaintiff To Move Upstate, Yet
Defendants' Campaign of Harassment And Intimidation Continues
215.
As a result of the forgoing, the NYPD defendants, through a campaign of
harassment and intimidation, forced plaintiffto move to upstate New York, approximately 200
miles away from New York City.
216.
Notwithstanding this move, between December 2009 and continuing on
through the present, armed NYPD officials including SERGEANT RICHARD WALL,
SERGEANT ROBERT W. O'HARE, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, CAPTAIN
TIMOTHY TRAINOR, SERGEANT SONDRA WILSON and several other NYPD defendants
continued their relentless efforts to silence, harass and/or otherwise harm plaintiff and his father
in the form of making or directing over a dozen appearances at his home in upstate New York.
217.
During these "visits", the NYPD has dispatched teams of armed detectives
and other armed members of the New York City Police Department, including SERGEANT
SONDRA WILSON, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, SERGEANT ROBERT W.
O'HARE and SERGEANT RICHARD WALL to harass and intimidate plaintiff by pounding
and kicking on his door and shouting "NYPD. WE KNOW YOU'RE IN THERE, OPEN
UP!!!"
218.
In one instance, on December 9, 2009, one of the aforementioned
defendants drove about 200 miles outside of NYPD jurisdiction on taxpayer's money-merely
to "spy" on plaintiff through his bedroom window.
39
219.
In response to this blatant and endless attempt to continuously harass and
intimidate plaintiff, plaintiff moved his bed out of said bedroom in order to prevent imminent
physical and emotional harm upon his person.
220.
Notwithstanding this action, armed NYPD officials including SERGEANT
RICHARD WALL, SERGEANT ROBERT W. O'HARE, LIEUTENANT THOMAS
HANLEY, SERGEANT SONDRA WILSON and some of the other NYPD defendants
continue, to come to his home, repeatedly pound on his door, photograph him, and engage
in efforts designed to purposefully intimidate and harass plaintiff in a tireless effort to silence
him once and for all.
Plaintiff's Allegations of Corruption and Fraud Within the NYPD Are Substantiated
221.
On June 23, 2010, the Quality Assurance Division within the NYPD
issued a report of its findings regarding the allegations of corruption made by Adrian
Schoolcraft prior to his unlawful imprisonment and detention on October 31, 2009.
222.
The findings
of the investigation substantiated the allegations that
complaint reports for index crimes were not being entered into the Omni System complaint
database and that crimes were being improperly reported in order to avoid index crime
classification.
223.
Specifically, the general findings of the investigation stemming from the
allegations of corruption made by Officer Schoolcraft concluded that a substantial amount of
crime reports that should have been classified as index crimes were either being downgraded
or not entered into the database at all.
224.
Further, the investigation found that this fraudulent crime recording was the
result of a widespread "pattern and practice," which created incentives to downgrade index
40
L-
'
I
crimes and/or refuse to record index crimes as reported by civilians.
Defendants' Pattern of Misconduct and Unlawful Behavior, and the NYPD's
Deliberate Indifference to Disciplining Supervising Officers.
225.
The incidents set forth above were not isolated events, but rather, were part
of an ongoing pattern of illegal and unlawful conduct on the part of the defendants herein.
226.
In fact, many of the NYPD defendants named in this action have been the
subject of internal affairs investigations and/or departmental hearings concerning allegations of
misconduct, as set forth below.
Defendant Mauriello's Misconduct
227.
For example, Defendant MAURIELLO has also been the subject of an
internal affairs investigation.
228.
As a direct result of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT'S allegations,
lAB is investigating defendant MAURIELLO's manipulation of crime statistics.
229.
Specifically, defendant MAURIELLO routinely fabricated cnme reports
resulting in violent felonies being downgraded to petty misdemeanors, creating the
appearance that the 81 st Precinct's crime rate was much lower statistically than in reality.
230.
Further, defendant MAURIELLO also commanded officers to increase their
"activity" and meet their quotas, instructing them on how to take people into custody
illegally and without probable cause.
231.
Additionally, as evidence of these directives, Sgt. Raymond Stukes and
Officer Hector Tirado of the 81 st Precinct were recently indicted for their perjurious testimony
regarding an incident where they had falsely alleged that they had bore witness to an individual
(an undercover lAB agent) attempt to sell bootleg cigarettes to two people, when in fact it had
never occurred.
41
232.
Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs aforementioned allegations against
defendant MAURIELLO were confirmed by the internal affairs investigation, absolutely none
of defendant MAURIELLO's authority or duty was modified in any way.
233.
Other high-ranking defendants in this case have engaged in substantial
misconduct and received little, if any, discipline from the NYPD.
For example, prior to the
events of October 31, 2009, Defendant MARINO was found to have imposed an illegal quota
when he was the commanding officer of the 75th Precinct and he was not disciplined for that
misconduct and in fact was thereafter promoted to the position he had as the Deputy Chief of
Patrol Borough Brooklyn North at the time of his misconduct in this case.
234.
Indeed, just one month before the events of October 31, 2009 Defendant
MARINO was faced with an internal NYPD trial arising from his illegal use of steroids and
despite these allegations none of defendant MARINO's authority or duty was modified in any
way.
235.
Similarly, Defendant NELSON has been the subject of NYPD internal
investigations for misconduct and never actually given any meaningful punishment by the
NYPD.
236.
Indeed, Defendant NELSON received "leaked" information from lAB about
complaints by members of the service, just like Defendant MAURIELLO obtained "leaked"
information about Officer Schoolcraft's reports in this case, and Defendant Nelson used that
leaked information, just like Defendant MAURIELLO did, to improperly reprimand or punish
a member of the service for making a complaint, stating specifically "we have friends" at lAB
237.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT sustained,
inter alia, bodily injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment,
42
humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights.
238.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly
embarrassed and humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was caused to
suffer physical injuries to his head, neck, back and arms, was involuntarily confined to Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
239.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
240.
All of the aforementioned acts of defendants, their agents, servants and
employees, were carried out under the color of state law.
241.
All of the aforementioned acts deprived plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the
United States by the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States of America, and in violationof42 U.S.C. § 1983.
242.
The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as police or FDNY or J H M C officers, employees, or agent,
with all the actual and/or apparent authority attendant thereto.
243.
The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as, police or FDNY or JHMC officers, employees, or agents
pursuant to the customs, usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the City of New York,
the New York City Police Department, the New York City Fire Department, and
J H M C , all under the supervision of ranking officers, employees, or agents of said
departments; and the acts of JHMC and Defendants Bernier and Isakov were taken under the
43
assumed governmental authority and responsibility to protect the public, m violation of
accepted medical standards and New York Mental Hygiene Law §9.39.
244.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, engaged in conduct which constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the
respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C.
§
illl
245.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
246.
NYPD defendants' infringement upon and violation of plaintiffs rights
protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to harm
plaintiff, and to place a chilling effect upon the exercise of such rights by plaintiff and other
persons as is their right, as provided by the U.S. Constitution and exercise of such rights.
247.
Further, before and after plaintiffs suspension on October 31, 2009 the
NYPD defendants unconstitutionally imposed these prior restraint on plaintiffs speech in an
effort by defendants to silence, intimidate, threaten and prevent plaintiff from disclosing the
evidence of corruption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting and documenting to the
media and the public at large.
248.
Additionally, NYPD defendants also seized plaintiffs personal notes and
other effects regarding his complaints against the 81 st precinct in an effort to prevent said
material from being disclosed to anyone and especially members of the news media and
victims of the aforementioned corruption.
249.
Further, defendants involuntarily committed plaintiff to the psychiatric
44
ward of Jamaica Hospital as an emotionally disturbed person and following his release
made repeated trips hundreds of miles outside of their jurisdiction to his home in upstate New
York in a continued effort to harass and intimidate him in order to prevent his speech from
being uttered.
250.
The aforementioned conduct resulted in a chilling effect on plaintiffs
speech thereby physically preventing his speech from being uttered to the media and public at
large; or alternatively, to ultimately discredit his speech when and if it were to be uttered by
making him appear "emotionally disturbed."
251.
Moreover, the allegations and evidence of corruption, misconduct and a
fraud upon the public at large, which plaintiff was gathering and preparing to disclose, was
eventually investigated by the Quality Assurance Division.
252.
Additionally, on June 23, 2010 the allegations of corruption, misconduct
and fraud upon the public m misclassifying, not classifying and falsifying civilian
complaints in order to avoid index cnme classification were substantiated by the NYPD
Quality Assurance Division.
253.
Further NYPD defendants' actions violated plaintiffs First Amendment
right to speak out as citizen regarding a matter of extreme public concern, which constituted and
fraud on the public and a breach of the public trust - namely widespread corruption, illegal
practices and the manipulation of civilian complaints by the very same individuals sworn to
protect the public at large.
254.
Moreover, following the home invasion of October 31, 2009 at
approximately 9:40 p.m. plaintiff was suspended by the NYPD, thus rendering disclosure of
the evidence of corruption and misconduct within the police department not pursuant to any
45
function as a police officer but purely as a citizen regarding matters of public concern.
255.
All of the actions taken by defendants following plaintiff's suspension
were directly in violation of his rights as secured by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
256.
Moreover the actions taken by NYPD defendants following plaintiff's
suspensiOn on October 31, 2009 in continuing to involuntary confine him at JHMC and
relentlessly harassing, threatening and intimidating him at his new horne in upstate New York
violated plaintiffs First Amendment right as he was continuing to attempt to disclose
information to the public at large that the largest Police Department in the United States had
committed serious and continuous breaches of the public trust.
257.
NYPD defendants continued to attempt to Impose this prior restraint on
plaintiff's speech in an effort to silence, intimidate, threaten and prevent plaintiff from
disclosing the evidence of corruption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting and
documenting to the media and the public at large.
258.
NYPD defendant's aforementioned conduct was not authorized by law and
instead constituted a continued attempt to restrain plaintiff's speech from ever being uttered,
which is presumptively unconstitutional.
259.
Further, NYPD defendants' actions continued to deprive plaintiff's First
Amendment right to speak out as citizen regarding a matter of extreme public concern, namely
widespread corruption and illegal practices by the very same individuals sworn to protect
the public at large.
260.
As such, NYPD defendants conduct was in direct violation of plaintiff's
right to freedom of speech as secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
261.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff's liberty was restricted for an
46
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated, subjected to
handcuffing, and other physical restraints in an attempt to restrain him from exercising his
rights protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and with the
intent to harm plaintiff, and to place a chilling effect upon the exercise of such rights by
plaintiff and other persons.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FALSE ARREST UNDER 42 U.S.C.
262.
§
1983
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
263.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was
subjected to illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody and
caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, and confined, without any probable cause, privilege
or consent.
264.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and
subjected to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 U.S. C.
265.
§
1983
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
266.
Defendants issued and I or commenced legal process to place
plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT under false arrest and imprisonment and to have him
involuntarily committed to JHMC.
267.
Defendants arrested and/or instituted legal process plaintiff in order
47
to obtain collateral objectives outside the legitimate ends of the legal process.
268.
Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain the collateral objective of
preventing plaintiff from appealing his performance evaluation.
269.
Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain the collateral objective of
preventing plaintiff from disclosing the aforementioned evidence of NYPD misconduct and
corruption plaintiff had been collecting and documenting.
267.
Defendants
acted
with intent to
do
harm to
plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT, without excuse or justification.
268.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected
to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
EXCESSivE FORCE QNDER 42 U.S.C. §1983
269.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing allegation
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
270.
The level of force employed by defendants was objectively unreasonable
and in violation of the constitutional rights ofthe plaintiff.
271.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT sustained,
inter alia, bodily injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment, and
humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FAILURE TO INTERCEDE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
272.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every fore going
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
48
273.
The defendants had an affirmative duty to intercede when plaintiffs
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants' presence by the use of excessive force.
274.
Defendants further violated plaintiff's constitutional rights when they failed
to intercede and prevent the violation or further violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights and
the injuries or further injuries caused as a result of said failure.
275.
The defendants had an affirmative duty to intercede when plaintiffs
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants' presence by falsifying evidence of
probable cause to arrest plaintiff.
276.
As a result of the defendants' failure to intercede when plaintiffs
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants' presence, plaintiff sustained, inter alia,
physical and emotional injuries.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND ENTRY UNDER 42 U.S.C.
277.
§
1983
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
278.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiffs home and
possessions were illegally and improperly entered without, a valid warrant, probable cause,
privilege or consent, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
279.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiffs home
was entered illegally at a time not prescribed in a warrant, in violation of his constitutional
rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States.
280.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
49
,_
SCHOOLCRAFT was not provided a copy of said warrant upon his request, in violation of his
constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
281.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiffs home and
possessions were illegally and improperly searched without any warrant, probable cause,
privilege or consent, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
SEYENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INvOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT UNDER 42 U.S. C.
282.
§
1983
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing allegation
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
283.
Defendants JMHC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER, unlawfully and
involuntarily confined plaintiff to JHMC for six (6) days without plaintiffs permission,
consent or any lawful basis for doing so, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in
the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
i
284.
Further, defendants JMHC ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER violated
plaintiffs rights under the New York State Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a) when they failed to
perform the proper and necessary tests to determine that plaintiff was either 1) a "substantial
risk of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide or other
conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself' or 2) "a substantial risk of physical
harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are
placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm."
285.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by
defendants, plaintiff was
unlawfully detained and involuntarily confined to hospital treatment without any justification,
50
in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth m the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
286.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff was
deprived of his substantive and procedural due process rights, as set forth in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
287.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly
embarrassed and humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily
confined to hospital treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
CONSPIRACY TO viOLATE PLAINTIFF'S CIYIL RIGHTS
UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
288.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation as if the same were more fully set forth at length herein.
289.
Defendants conspired and acted in concert to do whatever was necessary,
lawful or not, to cause the arrest, imprisonment, and involuntary confinement of plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT.
290.
Throughout the period of the conspiracy, the defendants pursued their
objectives with actual malice toward plaintiff, with utter and deliberate indifference to and
disregard for plaintiffs rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States, without
probable or reasonable cause to believe plaintiff committed any crime or any other lawful basis
for doing so.
291.
Pursuant to the conspiracy, the conspirators, and their employees, agents and
servants, intentionally, recklessly, negligently, and/or with complete indifference to the rights
51
of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT: (a) manufactured false evidence and destroyed
evidence; (b) unlawfully entered plaintiff's horne; (c) illegally seized plaintiff's property; (d)
verbally and physically threatened plaintiff in an attempt to silence him; (e) stalked and
menaced plaintiff at his horne; and (b) pressured, bribed, coerced and induced individuals
to have plaintiff involuntarily confined to hospital treatment without his consent or any other
lawful basis for doing so.
292.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly
embarrassed and humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily
confined to hospital treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTivE AND PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS UNDER 42JJ.S,C, § 1983
293.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
294.
Despite the fact that defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER
had no objective information whatsoever to believe that plaintiff was a danger to himself or
anyone else, plaintiff was involuntarily hospitalized and remained there for six (6) days.
295.
Defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER never made any
determination - as is required by the Constitution - that that plaintiff was a danger to himself or
anyone else, and forcibly restrained Plaintiff and permitted forcibly restraints without considering
less restrictive alternatives even though no emergency existed and Plaintiff was not dangerous to
himself or others, in violation of Plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process rights.
296.
Further, any such determination by defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and
52
ALDANA- BERNIER that that plaintiff was a danger to himself or anyone else was not
made with any objective criteria or any reasonable degree of accuracy.
297.
Defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER, unlawfully and
involuntarily confined plaintiff to JHMC for six (6) days without plaintiff's permission,
consent or any lawful basis for doing so, without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and
without any opportunity to confront adverse witnesses or present evidence on his own behalf,
in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States.
298.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff was
deprived of his substantive and procedural due process rights, as set forth in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
299.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly
embarrassed and humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily
confined to hospital treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
300.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was deprived
of his liberty and involuntarily confined for six (6) days
at JHMC in violation of his
substantive and procedural due process rights as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C.
301.
§
1983
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
302.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
53
law, engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the
respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.
303.
The aforementioned customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and
rules ofthe City of New York and the New York City Police Department included, but were
not limited to:
1.
Creating a quotas system for NYPD subordinate officers reqmrmg the
officers to issue a certain number of stops, arresting, or summonses per
month and year regardless of reasonable suspicion, or probable cause;
n.
Creating a policy of awarding incentives to officers who meet or exceed
the required number of stops, arresting, or summonses according to NYPD' s
quota;
111.
Creating a policy of punishing officers who fail to meet the required
number of stops, arrests, or summonses established by NYPD's quota;
IV.
Intimidating and threatening police officers with retaliation when said
police officers challenge unlawful NYPD quota policies;
v.
Intimidating and threatening police officers with retaliation when said
police officers attempt to disclose instances ofNYPD corruption and police
misconduct, fraud and breaches of the public trust;
VI.
Retaliating against police officers with suspensions and disciplinary
hearings who disclose or attempt to disclose NYPD corruption and police
misconduct;
vn.
Displaying a deliberate indifference to disciplining supervisors, despite
allegations of illegal and/or unconstitutional conduct; and
vm.
Intentionally "leaking" officers lAB complaints - which lAB is duty bound
to keep confidential - for purposes of alerting NYPD personnel and other
supervisory officers, whom are the subject of the complaints, in an ongoing
effort to discourage future lAB complaints and/or silence those in existence.
304.
The existence of the aforesaid unconstitutional customs and policies may
be inferred from repeated occurrences of similar wrongful conduct as has been recently
publicized in the matters ofPolice Officer's Adhyl Polanco and Frank Pallestro.
54
305.
The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of
the City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the moving force
behind the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein.
306.
Additionally, the NYPD's deliberate indifference to proper training,
supervising and/or disciplining of policy making officials such as defendants MARINO,
NELSON and MAURIELLO constituted explicit and/or tacit approval of their illegal and
unconstitutional conduct.
307.
Further, the NYPD's deliberate indifference to proper training and
supervisiOn of the Internal Affairs Bureau regarding maintaining the confidentiality of
complainants constitutes implicit and/or tacit approval of illegal and unconstitutional conduct
thereby discouraging the disclosure of illegal and unconstitutional acts in violation of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
308.
As a result of the foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures
and rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was subjected to unlawful and excessive force resulting in
permanent and disabling injuries.
309.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, were directly and actively involved in violating plaintiffs constitutional rights.
310.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, acquiesced in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by subordinate police officers, and
were directly responsible for the violation of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT's
constitutional rights.
311.
The acts complained were a direct and proximate result of the usages,
55
practices, procedures and rules of the City of New York, the New York City Police
Department, and JHMC which constituted deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being and
constitutional rights of plaintiff.
The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of
312.
the City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the direct and
proximate cause of the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein.
1.
Not to be deprived ofliberty without due process oflaw;
11.
To be free from seizure of liberty and arrest not based upon probable cause;
111.
Not to have excessive force imposed upon him;
IV.
Not to have summary punishment imposed upon him;
v.
To receive equal protection under the law; and
v1.
Not to be deprived of his right to free speech.
PENDANT STATE
CLAIMS
313.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
314.
On or about January 27, 2010, and within (90) days after the claim herein
accrued, the plaintiff duly served upon, presented to and filed with defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, a Notice of Claim setting forth all facts and information required
under the General Municipal Law§ 50 (e).
315.
Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has wholly neglected or refused to
make an adjustment or payment thereof and more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the
presentation of such claim as aforesaid.
316.
Upon information and belief, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has
56
not yet demanded a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h.
317.
This action was commenced within one ( 1) year and ninety (90) days after
the cause of action herein accrued.
318.
Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to maintaining the
instant action.
319.
This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in
C.P .L.R. § 1602.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N,y, STATE LAW; ASSAULT
320.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
321.
Defendants' aforementioned actions placed plaintiff in apprehension of
imminent harmful and offensive bodily contact.
322.
As a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and
mental anguish, together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment, and humiliation.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N,y, STATE LAW; BATTER¥
323.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
324.
Defendant police officers assaulted plaintiff in a harmful and offensive manner.
325.
Defendant police officers did so without privilege or consent from plaintiff.
326.
As a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and
mental anguish, together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment and humiliation.
57
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.y. STATE LAW; FALSE ARREST
327.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Defendants arrested plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT in the absence of
328.
probable cause and without a warrant.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
329.
SCHOOLCRAFT was subjected to an illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants
and taken into custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incarcerated
and by the defendants. The aforesaid actions by the defendants constituted a deprivation of the
plaintiffs rights.
330.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to
hospital treatment, was forced to incur substantial expenses and had his personal and
professional reputation destroyed.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.y. STATE LAW;
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
331.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
332.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
falsely imprisoned, his liberty was restricted for an extended period of time, was put in
fear for his safety, was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing, and other physical restraints.
333.
Plaintiff was conscious of said confinement and did not consent to said
confinement.
58
334.
The confinement of plaintiff was without probable cause and was not
otherwise privileged.
335.
As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical
and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom.
336.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, was forced to incur substantial expenses and had his personal
and professional reputation destroyed.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW;
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
337.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
338.
The aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous, and exceeded all
reasonable bounds of decency.
339.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting
within the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
340.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting in
furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
341.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting
within the scope of their employment by defendant JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER.
342.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting in
furtherance of their employment by defendant JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER.
59
343.
The aforementioned conduct was intentional and done for the sole
purpose of causing severe emotional distress to plaintiff.
344.
As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered severe
emotional distress, physical and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation,
shock, fright and loss of freedom.
345.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
deprived of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, was forced to incur substantial expenses and had his
professional reputation destroyed.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.y. STATE LAW;
NEGLIGENTHIRINGrrRAINING/SJJPERYISION/RETENTION
(Defendant City of New York)
346.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Negligent Retention and Supervision of Defendant Marino
347.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that defendant Marino
was wholly unfit for duty as Assistant Chief of Patrol Borough Brooklyn North charged with
the responsibility of overseeing all the precincts in Kings County.
348.
Specifically, the CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice of the fact that Marino
had violent propensities and an explosive temperament which would and did result in
numerous instances of excessive force and physical altercations.
349.
CHIEF MARINO was found to be directly responsible for violating New
York State Labor Law in 2006 by implementing an unlawful quota policy in the 75th Precinct.
60
350.
Following that finding, the CITY OF NEW YORK not only failed to
discipline him but in fact promoted him from the commanding officer of the 75th Precinct
to Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North.
351.
As a result of the foregoing acts of unlawful conduct and/or grossly
improper behavior by defendant MARINO, defendant City of New York knew, or should have
known, that defendant MARINO was wholly unfit for any of position of command, much less
Assistant Borough Chief.
352.
Notwithstanding defendant Marino's history of unlawful and improper
conduct, however, defendant CITY OF NEW YORK failed to take proper disciplinary action
against CHIEF MARINO, and failed to otherwise modify or limit defendant Marino's
responsibilities or position of command.
353.
To the contrary, the NYPD actually rewarded defendant Marino for his
misconduct by promoting him to Assistant Borough Chief Brooklyn North - which includes
the 81 st Precinct- leading directly to the events which took place on October 31, 2009.
354.
Defendants' negligent retention and supervision of defendant Marino was
the direct and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff on October 31, 2009 and
I
thereafter.
355.
1-
As a result of the foregoing negligent acts and omissions by defendant CITY
OF NEW YORK, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT has suffered physical and mental
injury, pain and trauma, together with embarrassment, humiliation shock, fright, and loss of
freedom.
356.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned
and supervised all members of said its Police Department, including the defendants
61
individually named above.
357.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it
selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its Police
Department including the defendants individually named above.
358.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it
repeatedly failed to act and/or discipline supervisory personnel in the face of obvious evidence
of corruption and misconduct.
Negligence in Failing to Keep lAB Complaints Confidential
359.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was further negligent and careless when it
repeatedly allowed allegedly confidential lAB complaints regarding supervisory personnel to
be "leaked" to the very same officials of who were the subjects of the complaints.
360.
Additionally defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that lAB
was failing to keep complaints of corruption and illegality confidential due to a similar "leak"
in the 42nd Precinct regarding allegations of illegality which occurred in September, 2009
involving P.O. Frank Pallestro.
361.
Further defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that lAB was
failing to keep complaints of corruption and illegality confidential due to a similar "leak" in
the 42"d Precinct regarding allegations of illegality involving P.O. Adhyl Polanco.
SEvENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.y. STATE
LAlY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
362.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
363.
That JHMC, its agents, officials, doctors, nurses, physician's assistants,
servants, employees, and/or independent contractors, including, but not limited to, DR. ISAK
62
ISAKOV, and DR. LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, jointly and severally, and individually,
departed from good and accepted standards of medical care, and were negligent and careless in
the service rendered for and on behalf of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, in failing to
timely diagnose and render proper treatment to plaintiff; in failing to recognize that he was not
emotionally disturbed and in need of involuntary confinement; in improperly and negligently
documenting plaintiffs medical conditions on his chart on the basis of unsubstantiated
hearsay; in failing to properly interpret the diagnostic tests that were performed; in failing to
call for or request necessary additional diagnostic tests and studies; in failing to properly and
timely obtain consults; in failing to hire a competent and efficient staff; in negligently hiring,
retaining, supervising and controlling staff, doctors, nurses and other personnel; in forming
a diagnosis solely based on non-medical professionals and/or staffs non expert and
unprofessional lay opinion.
364.
That the defendants herein, their agents, officials, doctors, nurses,
physician's assistants, servants and employees were further negligent and careless and
violated accepted medical practices, medical customs and medical standards in that defendants,
jointly and/or severally, failed to have an adequate, competent and/or sufficient nursing staff
and/or other personnel to properly diagnose plaintiff which would have ensured his prompt
and immediate release under the foreseeable circumstances; failed to have proper supervision
of hospital-employed and/or affiliated physicians; failed to conform to the Joint Commission
of Accreditation of Hospitals insofar as the making and/or keeping of hospital records; in
failed to
promulgate and/or enforce rules, regulations and guidelines as to proper
psychiatric care; and failed to timely and/or properly carry out orders.
365.
That as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants
63
!--
herein, plaintiff was caused to and did sustain the severe consequence of being involuntarily
confined against his will for six days, when there was no medical or professional basis to do so.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW;
NEGLIGENT HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISION/RETENTION
(Defendant JHMC)
366.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
367.
Defendant
JHMC
selected,
hired,
trained,
retained,
assigned
and
supervised all members of its staff, including the defendants individually named above.
368.
Defendant JHMC was negligent and careless when it selected, hired, trained,
retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its staff including the defendants
individually named above.
369.
Due to the negligence of the defendants as set forth above, plaintiff
suffered physical and mental injury, pain and trauma, together with embarrassment,
humiliation shock, fright, and loss of freedom.
370.
By reason of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT requests the following relief:
A.
Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
B.
Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
C.
Declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff and against each of the defendants,
finding that the defendants' conduct was unlawful, including without limitation, fmdings that the
claims for relief have been established; that the practices and policies ofthe NYPD on quotas for
stops, summons and arrests and the manipulation and downgrading of crime reports are unlawful;
that the practices and policies for falsification of training records are unlawful; and that the
64
NYPD and JHMC records should be expunged to the extent that those records suggest that
plaintiff is (or or ever was) emotional disturbed, or suffering from a mental illness or dangerous
to himself or others.
D.
An award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as well
as costs and disbursements; and
E.
Any further relief as the Court may find just and proper.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT demands judgment in an
amount to be determined at trial for compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaratory
judgment in his favor and against the defendants, attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements
of this action.
Dated: New York, New York
December 4, 2014
BY:
BY:
65
/S
NATHANIEL B. SMITH
Attorney for Plaintiff
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
(212) 227-7062
natbsmith@gmail.com
/S - - - - - - JOHN D. LENOIR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
(212) 227-7062
john.lenoir@gmail.com
66
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?