Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 298

DECLARATION of Suzanna P. Mettham in Support re: 297 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, in his Official Capacity), Thomas Hanley(Tax Id. 879761, in his Official Capacity), Thomas Hanley(Tax Id. 879761, Individually), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Robert W. O'Hare(Tax Id. 916960, Individually), Robert W. O'Hare(Tax Id. 916960, in his Official Capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, in his Official Capacity), Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, Individually), Richard Wall, Sondra Wilson(Shield No. 5172, in her Official Capacity), Sondra Wilson(Shield No. 5172, Individually). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN, # 41 Exhibit OO, # 42 Exhibit PP, # 43 Exhibit QQ, # 44 Exhibit RR)(Shaffer, Ryan)

ÂO

4,1û

(Rev. l?i09) Summons in ¿ Civil Âction

Uxmpn Sr¿rps Dlsrrucr CoURT
for the

Southem Þisfrict of New York
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT

)
)

Pleintif
CITY OF NEW YORK,

)

ÉÏ

AL,

Civil Action No, '10CV06005

)

Ðeþndant

A¡V¡ENDBD

)
)
)

SUMMONS IN A CIWLá,CTICIN

'To: (Þeþndant's name and a.ddres) PLEASE gEE ATTACHED LIST FOR SERVICE NAMES AND ADDRESSES

,4 lawsuit has been filed against you,

Wilhin ?l days nfter serviçe of tlris summons on you (not counfing the day ycu reccived it) * nr 60 tlays if yriu
are the tirrited States ur a Unitecl States agency, or an officer or e rnployee af the tjnhcd States described in Fed. R. Civ.
F" l2(a)(zJ or (3'l -- you musf ssrve on the plainliff äfl änswer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule l3 sf
thc þ'erlsral R.ules of Civil Prcce dure" I'hc answer or motion muil be served an the plainf ifl" nr plairttifls ätforncy,
whose narne arrcl addÍes$ ãrü: JON L. NoRlNsgERG,
oCIHEN & FITCH LLP
233 BROADWAY, SUITE 1BOO
225 BROADWAY, SUITE
NEW YORK, NEWYORK 1027S
NEWYORK, NEWYORK

PLLC
27OO
1OÛ07

If you fail to respond, judgment by defäult will be entered against you for the.relicf demanded in the complaint.
Yr¡u also rnust file your answêr or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT'

Dater
Signalure of Clerk or Depury Qlsfla

T}IE CITY ¡3F NEW YCIRK
100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

J.

DEPUI'Y CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, Tax Id, 873220
ASSISTANT CHTËF PÂTROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH GER,A-I,D

4,

NEI.,SON, Tsx Id. 912370
SüRGEÁN'I KLJIII' DLINCÅ.N, Shield No. ?483,

2,

5.
6
1

f.lHUïß¡.¡Á,NT WILI-IAM COUCH, Tax Id, 9ï9124,

CjÂPTAIN TlM0"llJY "|RAINOI{, Tax, Id. 899922

r-iliI IT.ËNÁ"NT'nioM^ s !|.4NI-EY.
l?9 Wilson Avenue

87 97

6I

Brooklyn, NY 11237
8.

DEPUTY INSPBCTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id. 89s1i7
Transit Elorough Bronx
Moris Fark Avenue
Bronx. NY 10460
460

9

CAPTAIN îHË,ODOR"E LAUTERBORN, Tax Id, 897840,
Narcotic Borough Brooklyn South Narc,otic Division

I

Police Plaza, I{m, I 100

New York, NY 10007
t0.

SCT, FREDEzuCK SÄWYER, Shield No, 257ó,
$pecial Unit
3

l5 Hudson Street,

3r rr

Floor, Rm.

3

New York, NY i0013
1t,

LIEUTËNANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART,'l'ax Id. 9t s3 s4
1 1 5"' Precinct
92-15 Northern Blvd,,
Jackson l"lgts., NY, 1i372

12.

lJ,

LIEUTENANT TIN4OTI-IY CAUGHEY, Tax Id, 885374
SERGEANT'SHANTËL JAMES, Shield No" 30004
81 P¡:ecinct
30 Ralph Avenue
Brooklyn, NY, I 1221

14,

SERCEANT ROBERI'O'IIARE, Tax Id, 916960
PSA 2
560 Sutter Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11207

t5,

SERGEANT ruCH.ARD WALL
Technical Assistance Response Unit
610 Little Bay Road
Queens,

NY

I 1359

16.

SERGEANT SONDRA VI/ILSON
One Police Plaza
Room 1406

LegalBureau
New York,
17.

Ì.ry

10038

LTBUTENANT ELISE HANLON, NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
FDNY, Burea.u of LegalAffairs
9 Metro Tech Center,4lh Floor
Brooklyn NY 1i201

18.

JAMAICA I{OSPITAL MEDICAL CBN bR
89 Van V/yck Bxpressway'West
Jamaica, ¡ry 11411

19

DR, ISAK ISAKOV
89 Van Wyck Expressway
Jamaica,

20

NY

TVest

11411

DR. LTLIAN ALDANA.BERMER
89 Van Wyck Expressway West
Jamaica,

NY

11411

LINITED STA'IES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------x
ADzuAN SCHOOI,CRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ssÇor\8

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CI.IIEF M]CHAHL

AMEJYpEp-

MAzuNO, Tax Id, 873220,lndividually and in his Official Capacity,
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUOH BROOKLYN NORTH
üERALD NELSON, Tax Id, 912370, individually and in his Ofñcial
Capacity, DEPLITY iNSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id,
895117, Individualiy and in his Official Capacity, CAPTAIN
THEODORE LAUTER"BORN, Tax id. 897840, Individually and in
his offrcial capacity, LiEIJTENANT WILLIAM GOUGH, Tax Id,

COMPLAINT

919124, Individually and

in hís Ot'ficial

Capacity,

SGT.

FREDERICK SAWYER, Shield No, 257ó, Individually and in lrjs
official capacity, SERÛEANT KUR',r DLINCAN, Shield No. 2483,
Individually and ín his CIfficial Capacity, LIEUTENANT
CHzuSTOPIÍËR BROSCÍ{.ART, Tax Id, 915354, Individualiy and in
his OfTicial Capacìty, LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax
id. 885374, Individually and in his Official Capaoity, SEROEANT
SI-IANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004, Individually and in he¡ Official
Capacity, LIEUTENANT THOMÂS HANLEY, Tax Id. 879761,
individually and in his Ofñcial Capacity, CAPTAIN TIMOTI{Y
TRAINER, Tax Id. 899972,lndividua1ly and in his Official Capacity,
SERCEANT SONDRA WILSON, Shield No. 5172, Individually and
in her official capaciry, SERGEANT ROBERT 'W. O'HARE, Tax
Id, 916960, Individually and in his Of{icial Capacity, SBRGEANT
RICHARD WALL, Shield No. 3099 and P,O,'s "JOHN I)OE" #1-50,
Individually and in their Ofücial Capacity (the name John Doe being
fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), (collectively
referred'to as .NYPD defendants"), FDNY LIEUTENANT ELISE
I{A.NLON, individually ¿¡nd in her offïcial capaoity as a lieutenant
with the New York City Fire Department, JAMAICA HOSPITAL
MEDICAL CENTER, DR, ISAK ISAKCIV, Individually and in his
official Capacity, DR, LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, Individually
and in hcr Official Capacitl, and JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER EMPLOYEE'S "JOHN DOE" # 1-5û, Individually and in
their ûfficial Capacity (the name John Doe being frctitious, as the
true names are presently unknown),
Defendanrs.

rp

Ç*v_.g6gqã

JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
ECF CASE

Plaintiff ADzuAN SCHOOI,CRé.Ì'T by his ârtorneys, Jon Norinsberg ancl Cohen & Fitch

LLP, complainìng of the defendants, respeÇtfully allcge as follorvs;
PR4L-IMINARY STATPMENT

l.

Piaintiff brings this actio¡r for conrpensatory damages, punitive damages

and

attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U,S.C, $ 1983 and 42 U.S,C. $ 1988 for violatjons of iris cjvil
rights, as saìd rights are se,cured by said slätutes and the Constitutions of the Stare of New York
and tire United States,

2,

This action seeks redress fcrr a coordinated and concentrated efTort by ìrigh

ranking officials witirin the New York City Police Deparfment (hereinafter "N\aPI)") to silence,

intimidate, tlueaten and retaliate against plaintiff ADRIAN SCI{OOLCRAFT. for his
documentation and disclosure of conuption with the

NYPD. Specifìcally, that the NYPD had

established an illegal quota policy for the issuance of summonses and arrests and th¿t defendants

were falsifying and instructing police officars to suborn perjury on police reports in order lo
distort COMPSTAT statistics. In order to prevent disclosure of these illegal and unconstitutional
acts, which would have revealed rarnpant NYPD comrption, defendants unlauúrlly enterecl

plaintiffs home, had him forcibly removed in handcufïs, seized his personal effects, inciuding
evidence he had gathered documenting NYPD coruption and had

I-{ospital Center against his
o'emotionally

will, under false and

him admitted to

Jamaica

perjurious information that plaintiff was

disturbed", Tbereafler delendant officers conspired with Jamaica Hospitai Center

personnel to have plaintiff involuntarily committed in its psychiatric ward for six (6) days, all in

an effort to rarnish plaintiffs reputation and discredit his allegations should he succeed
disclosing evidence of widespread comrption within the NYPD,

irr

JUBISDICTION

3.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U"S.C. $ 1983 and 42 U,S.C, $ 1988, and the

Fourth, Fifth, a¡rd Fourteenth Amenchnents to the United States Constitution. ,Jurisdiction is
founded upon ?8 U.S.C, $$ 1331 and 1343,

VENUE

4,
1391(c),

Venue is properiy laid in the Southem District of New York under U,S,C,

$

in that the defenclant Cify of New York is a municipal corporatirrn that resides in the

Southern Di.strict

of New York, Further, this matter is inext¡icably interwoven to a related

proceeding cwrently pending in the Southern District of New York, Stinsou-et. al v, CitJ of New
Y.crlk et. .ai,

(RIVS) 10 CV 4228,

JURY DEMÁ,ND

5,

Plaintiff respectfully den:ands

a

trial by jury of all issues in

thi,ç matteÍ pursuant tÕ

Fed R, Civ. P.38&).

PARTIES

6.

Plaintiff ADRIAN SCI{OOLCRAFT is a Caucasian maie, a citizen of the Unitecl

States, and at all reievant times a resident of the

7,

Defendant

Cþ

and State of New York,

CIIY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State

8.

'

corporation duiy

ofNew York.

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK maintains the New Yçrk City Police

Department, a duly authorized public authority andlor police department, authorjzed to psrfonx

all funetions of a police department as pff the applioable sections of the New York

Stare

Crirninal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned
municipal corporation, City of New York.

9.

That ar all lin¡es bereinaf'ter mentioned, the individually named defendzurts DüPUI'Y

CHiËF MICHAEL MARINO, ASST. CHJHF GERJ.LD NELSON, DEPUTY INSPËCTOR STPVEN
MAURIËJLLO, CAPTAIN THEODORE LAUTERBORN, LIEUTËNANI' TIMOTHY CAUOHEY,

SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, LIEUTENANTANT

WILLIAM GOUGIJ, SERGEAN

FRþDLRTCK SAWYER, SERGEANT KURT DT,INCAN, I,ilîUTENANT CHRISTOPHER
BROSCHART, SERGEANT zuCI.TARD

WALL, SERCEI'NT ROBERT W.

O'T{ARE,

LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, CAPTÂIN T'IMO]'HY TR,AINER, SERCEANT SONDRA
WILSON and P.O.'s ".IOHN DOE" #1-50 were duly swom police officers of said deparfment and were
acting under the supervision of said deparlment and according to their official duties,

10,

That at all times hereinafier mentioned the NYPD defendants, either personally or

through their employe,es, were acting under coior c¡f state law and/or in compliance with the official
rules, regulations, laws, stah.rtes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New York,

11,
defe¡rdants

Each a¡d all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alieged herein were done by said

while acting within the scope cf their ernployment by defendant TF{E CITY OF NEW

YORK,

12.

Each and all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alleged herein were done by said

defendants wirile acting in furtherance of their empioyment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

.l3,

Thaf at all times hereinafler mentioned, the individually namecl def'sndant

LIETITHNAN'Î ELISE I{ANLON was a duly sworn iieutenant with the New l'ork City

Fire

Department ("FDNY") and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to her

off¡cial duties.

14,

Tlnt at all times hcreinafter mentioned the FDNY defendant, was acting under

color of state law .and/or

in

compliance

with the ofücial ruies, regulatíons, laws,

statutes,

cusloms, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New Yol'k,

15.

Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defendant allegecl hçrein were dr¡ne by said

defendant while acting within the scope of her employment by defbnclant THE CITY OF NEW

YORK.

16.

Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defenda¡rt alleged herein were done by said

clefendant while acting

in fu*herance of her employment by defendant 'lHE

CIITY OF NEW

YORK,

17,

Defendant

the JAM,4,ICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENI'ER

(liereinaller

'oJlIMC") is a privately owned hospital iocaied at 8900 Van Wyck Expressway, Jamaica, New
York, i

I

41 8 and

18.

performs all functions of a hospital,

Thal at all times hereinafter.mentioned tbc rjefendant,JHMC, was a clomestic

corporation duly organi:¿.ed and existing unde¡ and by virnre 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, Søte of New York, and as such heid itself out

as

duly qualified to render proper and

adequate hospital service for the treament of ihe sick and ailing in the County

of New York, and as such held itself out as duly qualified to

of Queens,

State

ren<Jer proper and adequate hospital,

medical and surgical senices to members of the general public. including plaintiff.

2A,

Ttat 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 serviccs to members of the general
public" including plaintif f,

21.

That at all tirnes hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR.

attending physician

of the Psychiatic

Departrnerrt

servant and/or independent conhactor retained

ISAK ISAKOV rvæ the

r:f JHMC, and was an employee,

ageot,

by JHMC to render medical sen"ices, care and

trpatment palionts 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 quaiified

to render propcr and

aclequate medioal senices to

members of the general public, including plaintiff,

23,

That at all times hereinaft.er mentioned, defenclant DR. LILIAN ALDANA'

BERI.{IER was the admitting physician of the Psychiatric f)epartment

of

,THMC, and was an

employee, agenL, servant and/or independent contractor retaíned by JFIMC to render medical
seryices, care and treâtmenl patients seeking medical care ât JHMC.

24,

That at all timcs irereinafter mentioned, the defenciants JHMC EMPLOYEH'S

"JOHN DOE*

#

1-50 were working for and were acting under the supervision of JHMC

according to their official duties,

F.AúITUAL ÞLCIíGROUNÐ

Pl¡intiff s Exemplary Career In the U.S. Navy

25.

and NYPD

Plaintiff ADRTAN SCHOOLCRAFI' is a New York City Police Officer and

been employed by the New York City Police Deparlment

26,

has

("NYPD") since .Iuly, 2002.

Prior to the events set forth below, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCIìAF'I was a

decorated New York Ci¿v police officer and United States Navy veteran.

27

,

From I 993 to 1997, plaintifi ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAI|T served honorably in the

United States Navy,

28,

During this time, plaintiff ADRLAN SCHOOLCRAFT receivecl several

commendations, including the

o'National

Defense Service Medal" and the'o}ìirst Good Conduct

Medal."

2t).

Aftsr tour ycars of distinguished service r:n the I"JSS BIue Ridge, plaintiff

ADRIAN SCHCIOLCR,{FI" reoeived an honorable discharge from the Llnited States Navy

on

luly 22,1997,

30.

Thereafter, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, whose father was a police

officer, decided to join the New York City Police Departn:ent in Juiy 2002,
3

L

Fourteen n:onths after joining the NYPD, piaintifl'began working at the 8l

Precinct, where he remained until Octol¡er 31,20A9

32,

st

,

In total, plaíntiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCR A,FT worked f'or six years at the

81st

Precinct.

33,

Dwing this time, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAF'| became the senior patrol

office¡ on the 4:00 p.m. to l2:00 p,m, at the 81'r Precinct,

34,

in this capacity, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAF'| was often sought out by

other police officers fo¡ his knowledge, experience and sound judgment in handling difficult

work siruations,

35.

In his seven year carêer with the

N\?D, plaintiffADzuAN

SCHOOLCRAFT had

an exemplary record and in fact ¡eceived multiple commendations f'or his work as a poiice
offrcer.

36.

For example, On Oclober 28,2006, plaintiff received a "Meritorious Police Duty

Medal" fbr his '*outstanding performance" as a police officer,

37,

Simiiarly, on June 4, 2008, plaintiff recsived an award from the NYID for his

o'dedication to the New York Ciry Police Department and to the City of New York."

PlaintiffWitnesses Enforcement of an lllegnl Quota Policy for Summonses and Arrests

38.

During his timc at the

8l't precinct, plaintiff

began to observe a paftern

and

practice of supenisors enforoing a de.fãcto qJota policy requiring police officers to issue

a

certain number sunmons and arrests per month,

39.

Additionaliy, plaintifT observed that personal pcrfbrmance evaluations

were

almost entirely based on adherence to this quota and officers failing to meet the required amount
were ,subject to work related consequences, such as loss of overtime, tour changes ald denial of
vacation days,

4A,

Fuñher,

in

October 2A06, directly coinciding

with

defendant DEPUTY

INSPECTOR STEVËN MATIRIELLO's assignment to the 81*tprecinct, plaintifi and his fellow
police officers stalted to receive explicìt threats of tour transfers, undesirable assignmonts, poor
performance evaluations and other adverse conseguences for failure to meet their monthly anest
and summons quotas,

41.

Thesc admonishments to adhere

to monthly

quotas wsre repeatediy emphasized

by the defendant officers at the daily roll calls in the 81't precinct throughout plaintiffs
employment.

42,

For example, on December 8, 2008, Defendant MATIRIELLO be¡alEcl his officers

for not writing enough surnmonses per month:

"l

SEE ETGHT FUCKiNG SUMMONSËS FOR

A 20 DAY PERIOD OR A MONTT'L IF YOll MESS UP, HOW THE I{ELL DO YOU ï'¡ANT
ME TO DO ]'HE RIGHT'THING BY YöU?''

43,

Defendant MALIRIELLO repeatedly drove home this message, explicitly

threatening to move ofñcers out

of their piatoons

if

they did not make their numbers, For

example, on October 28,2008, MAUzuELLO shouted out to his offìcers:

\VORK, AND

I

"IF YOIJ DON'I'

CET THE SAME NAMES BACK AGAIN, I'M MOVING YOIJ, YOU'RE

GOING TA G0'I:O ANOT'Hþ:R PLAT'OONT'

44,

Defendants' illegal quota policy was enfbrced not just by Maurielio. but by other

high-ranking members

of the 8l*' Preci,rct, For example, on January 28,2AA9,

Raymond Stukcs stated:

"l TOLD

YOIJ G{JYS LAST MONTH: TH"EY

Sergeant

ARI I,OOKING AT

TIIESE NUMBERS, AND PEOPI-E ARE GOINO T'O CTïT MOVL,D .., ]'HËY CAN MAKË
YOUR JOB RBAI, TINCCIMFORTABLE, AND V/E AI-I, KNOW V/H"AT THAT MEANS.''

45,

On December 8, 2008, another Sergeant made similar th¡eats: "ly'HËN I I'HLL

YOU TO GET YOUR ACTTVITY UP, IT'S FOR

A

REASON, BECAUSE THEY ARE

LOOKING ]'O MOVþ] PEOPI,E, AND HE'S SËzuOUS ..,. THER.I]'S PËOPLË IN IIERE
THAI" MAY NOl'BE }IERE NEXT MON'I'H,''

46,

Additionally, on October 18,2009 another Sergeant made it explicitly clear to the

subordinate officcrs that

"AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT ïHE NUMBERS,"

Oflìcers Were Being Instructed to Make Arrests and Issue Summonses Without Probable
Cause

47.

In fact,

defendants were so obsessed with making their "numbers" that they

literally instructed officers to make arrests when tlrere was no evidence of any criminal activity
whatsoever.

48.

For example, on October 31,2008, Mauriello ordered his officers io arest

virtually everyhady they came in oontact with at 120 Chauncey Street in Bror:klyn, with or
w,ithout probabie cause; "EVERYBODY GOES.

I

DON'T CARE, YOU'R-E ON

12û

CHALTNCEY AbtrD THEY'R.E POPPING CHAMPAGNE? YOKE

T}M.OUGH THH

E'M. PUl' ]'HËM

SYSTEM. THEY GOT BANDANNAS ON, ARREST

THHM.

EVERYBODY GOES TONIGIIT. TIIEY'RE UNDERAGE? FUCK IT.''

49.

Similar orders were given by a Sergeant on November 23,20A8. "IF TIIEY'RE

ON A CORNER, MAKE 'EM MOVE. IF TI-IEY DON'T IVANT TO MOVE, LOCK 'EM UP.
DONE

DEAL, YOU CAN ALWAYS ARTICULATE [A C]IARCEI LATER."

50,
surnrnons

Thus, police officers at the 81st Preoinct were being instructed to arrest and

fully innocent people for crimes that never occurrsd for nothing more than standing

on

a street corner j.n their neighborhoods and then "a¡ticulate" 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 'fransportation MICHAEL SCAGNELLI, a three

star

Chiet was quoted as saying: "HOW M.A.NY SUPERSTARS AND I-IOW MANY LOSERS DO
WE HAVE, HOW MANY SUMMONSES DOES THE SQUAD V/RITE, WE NEED MORE

ACTIVITY, IF YOUR PRODUCTIVTTY FALLS BELOTV PAR ËITHER YOU OI{ THE
TS

C,O.

GOING1"O HAVE TO ANSWER,''

53,

Another high-ranking official at the 81*t Precinct, Lieutenant Delafuente, actually

gave specific numbers that must be met by each ofücer; "ICAPTAIN STARKY] ïVANTS

A'I

LEAST 3 SHATBELTS (SUMMONSES), 1 CELL PHONE (SLIMMONS) AND 11 OTHHRS

(suMMoNSËS)."
Plaintiff Refuses to Comply with the NYPD's Unlawful Quota Policy, Leading to Increased
P¡essure and Scrutiny from His Supenisors

54,

Unlike many of his colleagues, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT refused to

issue or to be cosrced tcl issue unwar¡anted and

illegal summonsss and affest innocent people in

rhe absence of probable cause simply to meet a quota.

55,

As a direot result of this "¡r<¡n-comp1iance," in January 2009, plaintiff ADRIAN

SCHOOLCRÂFT began to be sc.rulinized and increasingly pressured by his supervisors and
oommanding officer's

to

increase

his "ACTIVITY" (i,e, not writing enough summons

and

making arrests), cr face possible low performanoe evaluations and tour/command reassignmcnr.

56.

Specificaliy, on .ìanuary 13, 2009, plaintif.f wa$ summoned to a meeting with L'l'.

RAFAEI, MASCOL, who corunanded him to increase his "OVERALL ACTIVITY," or he

would be placed

on

"PERFORMANCE MONITORING" and

be

subject

to

"LOW

QUÁRTERLY EVALUATIONS, "

57,

Puñher, when plaintiff reqriested an explanation of the lieutenant's definition of

"ACTMTY," MASCOL expJicitly referenced the need to

increase his issuauce of srurunorises

and anests,

('Activity"
Illaintiff Receives a Poor Evaluation Based On l{is Low Summons

58.

On January 29,2009, plaintiff did, in fact, receivË a poor perfcrmance evaluation

æ a result of his :failure to issue the mandated number of summons and arrests required by iris
supervisors and .ilorough chi ef,

59,

Specifically, plaintiff rcceived an overall rating af 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.

é0,

For example, plaintiff s average for "performance areas" was actually 3,75, and

contained no rating whicir was less than 3,0, Similarly, plaintiffs average
dimensions" was 3.25. still well above the 2.5 rating that he received,

for

"behavio¡

61.

In addition, the

balarice

of the evaiu¿tion contained the following praise f'or

plaintiff:

P.û. Schoolcraff shows good community interaction

by

eliciting infr:nnation from witnesses and victims, He also
mediates probiems between disputing individuals and
plovides counseling when famjlies have oonflicts. P,O,
Schooicraft is abie to complete a¡rest forms accurately and
completely fand] is able tn fingerprint, photograph and
process ali arrest related paperwork.

67.

it is clear that plaintiff's failure to

Thus,

which plaintiff

s

supervisors

termed

meet the NYPD summonslarrests c¡nta

o'poor activity" and attributed

"unwillingfness] to change his approach to meeting performance standards"
reason why

-

to

plaintifls

was the rcal

plaintiff received such a poor performance evaluation,

Plaintiff Challenges His Low V/ork EvaluatÍon, Resulting in Intense Scrutiny By

His

Supervisors

63,

Thereafter, plaintiff immediateiy informed his supervisors of his intention to

appeal his evaluation based on the fact that they had either miscalculated

thçil overali raling or

he had been evaluated on an illegat and unconstitutional basis (i.e, not meeting arrest/su¡rmons
quotÐ,

64,

On February I, 2009, following plaintiff s disclosure of his intention to appeal,

poster that read

a

"lF'YOU DON'T LIKE YOTIR JOB THEN MAYBE YOIJ SHOUI,D OET

ANOTI-IER JOR" was posted to plaintiff s lc¡clcer,

65,
pressured

On February 3, 2009, Sgt, Meyer, the Squad Sergeant ai the 8l5tPrecinct, directly

plaintiff to increase his summons activity: "WHY DON'T YOLI JUST CONFO.IL\4?

THEY WANT A BOOK (20 SLTN4MONSES), SO EVERYONE WRITES 1s (SUMMONSES).
YOTJ COULD GET

,

66.

AIVAY WITTT 10 OR

12 (SLIh,{MONSES)

Foliowing that incident,

AND A COLLAR (ARREST)."

on February 20, 2009 plaintiff ADRIAN

SCHOOLCRAFT was approached by defendant MASCOL who informed plaintiff that the only
way plainliff improve future performance evaluations, was if plaintiff raised his "ACTIVITY,"
by writing "MORH SUMMONSES" and being "MORE PROACTIVE."

67.

In

response

to this ultimatum, plaintiff ADRIAN

SCHOOI",CR.AFT informed

defendant MASCOL that he would try to improve his activity but that he would not write illegal
sunrmonses or arrest people in the absence of probable cause to beiieve that a sunrmonsable or
arrestable offense h.ad been committecl,

Defendants Á.ttempt To 'rStrong-Arm" Plaintiff Into Dropping His Appeal

68.

Thereafter, on Februaxy 25, 2A09, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was

commanded to a meeting with all of the supervisors at the Slst Precinct to discuss the appeal of
his evaluation.

69,

The meeting was aftended by, amongst ofhers DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN

MAURIELLO, StsRGËANT' WEIS S, LIEUTENANT DELAFUENTE, CAPTAIN THEODORE

LAUTER-BORN, LIEUTENANT RAFAEL MASCOL. LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY
CAUGHEY, ANd SERGEANT RAYMOND STUKES.

7A.

During this meeting, the aforementioned supervisors repeatedly attempted to

discourage plaintiff

fiom appealing his performanoe evaluation and implicitiy th¡eatened plaintiff'

with retaliation if he pursued the issue.

TL

Specifically, in an aggressive, threatening tone, the supervising officers expressed

their "concern" that the appeal would be reviewed by DEPUTY CHIEF.MICHAEL MARINO
and "HE'S GOING TO L,OOK

AT YOUR EVAI-UATION, I-lE MAY PULL UP ALL YOUR

ACTIVITY AhID THEN HE'S GOINCì TO SAY YOt} WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR
EVALUATION IS? LOOK AT THB ACTIVITY, Iù/HAT ARE YOU FI.JCKINC KIDDING

ME?! KNOT/TNG HIM, HË'S GOING TO TALK A LOT OF SHIT,''

72.

ln fact, tbe sole

purpose

of the meeting was that pìaintiff had an insufficient

number of summonses and arrests a¡d as such his evaluation was waranted.

73,

The commancling officers at this meeting repeatedly informed plaintiff that he

could get a higher evaluation

if

he would raise his activiry, but when plaintiff repeatedly

requested an explanation as to the definition of '*activity" he wâ.s repeatediy informed he needed
to wrìte more sumuronses and arrests.

74,

Specifrcally, plaintiff was informed

in sum and substance "HOW ARE

WE

GOING TO JLTDGH SOMhBODY THATHÂS T'EN COLLARS THROUGH THb YEAR ANI)
M,A.YtsË 25 SUMMONSES I'HROUGH

TiIE YtsAR, COMTARED TO SOMEONE

V/HO'S

OO'I4 COLLARS WITH 14 SUMMONSES TI]ROUGI.I THE YEAR? THËRE'S GCI'f ]]O

BF]

soME VARIATION, THE SQUAD SERGAAN'I MAKES A DETËRMINAI]ON WIIO
TCIP GIJYS

ARI]; COMPARED TO HlS LOV/E,R GÏ"]YS. THAT'S HOW

75.

Then.

in a blatantly

TTS

IS

DONÐ.''

ûansparent act of intimidation, supervisors then referenced

police officers who had previously been terminated or transflened as a resulf of vocalizing
objections to their evaluations.

76,

This meefing wâs an overt. attempt to silence plaintiff's appeal because of the

supervisor's prior knowledge of the illegality of issuing substandard performance cvaluatio¡ts -based on an offrcer's failure to meet a sumnlons quota, which had been

firmly

establisheci by the

l,abor Arbitration Tribunal more than three years earlier,

The NYPD's Quota Policy¡ Struck f)own As Illegal in January 2006

77,

In facr, tire NYPD had previously been found to be in violation of New York

State

Labor Law fiectir¡n 21S-a,which makes it iliegal to issue poor evaiuations for an otfcer's failure

tomeettherequirerrrentofforanestablishedsufnm0nsquota'Sæ@
Ciry of l.lew Yo.rk Case # A- I 0699-04.

78.

Tire aforemôntiûned decision was based on Police Offioer David Velez's appeal

of his 2005 performance evaluation from the 75th precinct, whích was based entirely on his
failure to meet the minimum summons quota. (IdJ

79.

In that matter, P,O, Velez presented evidence that tlie then Commanding Oflicer

of the 75th precinct, CHIEF MIC}IAEL MARINO, a named
issued a direr;tive that officers must meet "a qnota

of l0

defendant

in the instant matter,

(ten) sunmons per month" ancl "that the

poiice ofñcers in scluad A-1 received lower marks on their evaluations

if the officers

did not

meet 'this minimum requirement."'(ld at 9),

80.

Additionally, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO reduced this directive to witing

and

distributed it to all of the supervisors in the 75th Precinct. (ld.)

81.

The aforementioned $'ritten directive ordered thar supenising officern

were

required to evaiuate officers based ori their adherence to the minimum quota of summonses and

anests, I¡i.

82.
officers

As a result of CHIEF MARNO's directive, Sgt, Lurch

issued a memo to all

in the 75th preoinct "remindlingl fofficers] thaf a FAILTJRE TO

REQUIRËD AMOTINT OF SLIMMONSES

WRITE

TI-IE

ANI] FAILURE TO MAKE TITE REQUIRF,N

NUMBER OF ARRËST FOR EAC}T RATINç PERIOD $/IL,T, RESULT IN SUBSTANDARI)
PERFORMANCE RATINGS," (Içt at l0),

83,

The aforementioned memo wås entitled '*Squad Activity Bxpectations," and the

word "activity" in that memo was speoificaliy referring to the requisite number of summonses
needed

to

meet the quot¿, which

is

unequivocal evidence

of the facl that P,û,

SCHOOLCRAF'I's own low evaluatÍon in the present matter based on his "poor activig"
directly correlates to a faihue to meet

84,

zur

illegal surnmons/anest quota,

While defendants denied the existence of any quota, the arbit¡ator emphatically

rejectcd defendants' claims

:

The Arbitrator finds that C,O. Marino's writing and Sergeant
Lurcir's rnemo could nat have been clearer: "failure to write the
required amount of' sun:.monses .., will result in substandard
perforrnance ratings ,.." Furthet. the æterisk in the goal column
make.s ìt cleæ that [fJ:ese] "goals" are monthiy, quarterly and
yearly. The A¡bitratar is completely p¿rrraded that the "goals"
column on this memo meets the definition in Labor Law Sestion
?15-a for '*quota" ... lThusl, the New York Police Department
violated New York State l-,abor [¿w SectionZlS-a by establishing
and mainfaining a sullmons quota ...

(ld.at 11,27) (emphasis added).

85,

Notwithstanding this finding, the chief perpetrator

of this unlawful policy,

MICHAËL MARINO, was subsequenily promoted by the NYPD and is uow the Depufy Chief of

in

charge of supervising the entire Borough, which is also

Given the existence

of the aforementioned related appeal and subsequent

Patrol Borough Brooklyn North,
where the 81'( precínct is losated.

86.
decision,

it is clear

that Febnrary 25,2009 "mceting" was an obvious eff'ort to plevent plaintiff

appeal, to avoid the repercussions

s

to defendants which could follow if they were fbund to have

violated the previous order, and engaged in this illegalquota practire once again.

87.

Furthermore, this "nreeting" rvas an attempt to prevent plaintiff from exposing the

NYPD's pattern and practice of falsifying training logs during roll calls, in which commanding
offioers would require patrol officers to sign a log indicating that they had received haining that

day on various police subjects, when in fact, they had received no such training flom their
supervlsors.

Plaintiff Refuses to Drop His Appeal and Insfead Directly Challenges the NYPDts Unlrr+{ul
Quota Policy

88. It is ciear that February 25,2009
plaintiff

"meeting" wås an obvious effort to prevsnt

s appeal to avoid the repercussions to defendants

89,

which cauld foilow.

Nohvithstanding 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 MALIRIELLO which directly challonged the NYPD's unlavvful quota policy
and the use of this policy as a basis for plaintifPs performance evaluation, Specifically, in this

letter, plaintiff s counsel vwote as f:rllows:
We are concerned that ou¡ client's negative evaluation is ba-sed r¡o¡
on the factors söt f'orth in Palrol Guide 205-48, but rather on his
alleged lack af "aclivity" relaled lo his number af arrests and
summons issued, Yet, Patrol Guide 205-48 n:akes no reference to
"activity" levels. Furthermorer lve are ì"maïvare of any Patrol
Guide provision which defines how much "activify" is required to
achieve a sati sfactory evaluation,

Plaintiffs Refusal to Drop His Appeal Results in Increased Harassment and Intimid¡tisn
by His SuperÍor O{ficers

91,
the

8l't

As a result of plaintiffs intention to pursue his appeal, plaintiffs supervisors at

Precinct began to crcâte an increasingly hostile work environment for him,

92,

Specificaliy, on March 16, 2009, defendant CAUGHEY issued plaintiff a written

reprimand for not documenting in his memo book that he had used the bathroonr faciiitl' on his
assigned post,

93.

Defendant CAUGHEY also confiscated plaintiffs memo book and made

a

photocopy of plaintiff s official note.s, which documented defendants' previous misconduct. and
more specifrcaiiy, that of SGlf , WEISS.

94.

That salne day plaintiff reported the inoident to the dury Capøin, defendart

LAUTERBORN,

95.

Plaintil'f requested that defendânt LAUTER-BORN dooument this act of retaliation

against him in a report.

96,

Ðefendant LAUTERBORN responded to this request

in

sum and

substancel

..WHAT DO
YOU WANÏ'TO REPORT? DIDN"T WE, TEI-L YOU WIIEN YOU LET.T'T{F]RË
THAT THERE'S üONNA BE A LÛ]] MORE SUPERVISION? THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS..

.

YOU THINK TH"AT I'HIS IS,., YOU KNOW... RETAI,IATION,., THIS IS A MATTER OF
SLJPERVISION.''

97,
transfer, "THE

Defendant LAUTERRORN ftrther wamed plaintiff that. affer the th¡eat of

DEVIL YOU KNOW IS MUCH BETTER'ÎHAN THË DEVIL YOU DON'T,"

and that from this point onward, plaintiff better "CROSS YOUR I(S)

98,

a

AND DOT YOUR T(S)."

During this convcrsation, defendant LAUTERBORN inf'ormed plaintiff that he

was being carefully monitored because of his "POOR PERFORMANCB" antl suggesteqi that ir
si:ould not be a surprise now
had not previously resulted

gg,

if

even minor infractions result in disciplinary action, even

if they

in such action,

Defendant LAUTERBORN firther informed piaintiff that he was being placed on

"PERFORMANCE MONITORING" because his "MIMBERS" werÊ not sufficient and that
defendant

MAURIELLO was a "FANATIC" ¿bout ensuring officers have high "AC'I'IVIT'Y,'

impiicitiy threatening to transfer piaintiff should he not increase his "ACTIVITY,"

100, As he had previously

informed defendant MASCOL, plaintiff reiterated to

to improve his "ACTIViT'Y" but refused

to

issue illegal swffnonses or make false ar¡ests absent probable pause of a crirne or violation.

1o

defendant LAUTËRBORN that he would work

which defendant LAUTERBORN respondecl by openly mocking plaintiff: .'YOU WANT TO

BE'MR. COMMLINJTY" ß THAT \I,'HAT YOUR DOINO?!"

101,

Defendant LAUTERBORI.{ proceeded

to provide plaintiff with

examples

of

sifuations where plaintiff could make anests or issue surnmonses to increase his activity clespite,
the fact that there had been "NO VIOLATÍON OF

LAW."

1A2, Speoifìcally, defendant LAU'|ERBORN
detain young adults merely for sitting in ûont

instructed piaintifi

of a high crime building,

to

approach and

regardless of probable

cåuse or reasonable suspicion,

103.

Further defendant LAIJTERBORN 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

can not ap-pear'.SOFT" in

these neighborhoods.

Defendants Attempt to Isolate and Separrle Plaintiff from IIis Fellow Ofñeers

104. In a f,uther

effort to intirnidate plaintiff, in March of 2009 clefendants also began

to isolate piaintiff ADRTAN SCHOOLCRAIT from his fellow offrcers by
actualiy disciplining Police Offrcer Chan, for simply talking to

105.

As a result fellow police o.fücers at the

81

tt

thrreatening and

plaintifl

precinct consistentJy avoided plaintiff

out of fear that supervisors would retaliate against them,

Defendants Esc¡late Their Intimidation Tactics by Taking Awsy Plaintiff s Gun ¡nd Shield

i06.

Thereafrer, plaintiff leamed from P.O. ZUCKER

of the 81'r

P¡ecinct that

defendants were åttempting to execute a scenario portraying plaintiff as being psychologically

rnfit to work, in which plaintiff would be involuntarily committed to a hospital.

107.

Specifically, on March 16,2009, defendant WEISS was overheard stating, in

reference to plaintiff:

"l'M COING'I'0

HAVE HIM PSYCI{ED."

108, In April of 2009, defendants saw an opportunity to pursue
plaintiffhad

this scheme when

a legitimate health issue.

109, In furlheranoe

of this plan, plaintiff was required to consult NYP.D psychologist

D¡. Catherine Lamslein for a psychological evaluation followíng an unrel¿rted examination by
NYPD poiice surgeon, Joseph Cuffio, M.D,, fbr chest pains he experienced on April 3, ?009.

110.

During his examinatir:n with Dr. Larnstein, plaintiff disclosed the existence of

illegal NYPD policies and practices and other corruption he had observed over the past year.

111. At the conclusion of Dr, Lamstein's

cxamination, and immediately following

piaintiffs disclosure of rampant comrption within the

81or 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 surrende¡ his gun and shield.

Plaintiffls Appeal Is Suddcnly Closed lVithout His Knowledge or Consent

1i2,

On

April 14,2009,the following day, piaìntiffls

performance evaluation appeai

was "coincidentali/' anct inexplicably closed, without a hearing or notice of any kjnd æ to the
basis ofthe closure.

113, h should be noted that whiie

the appeal was closed

in fact on April 14,20Ag,

piaintiff was not made aware of tiris fact until a much laler date,

114.

Ðespite being denied any infonnation regarding his appeal. piaintiff continued to

reientlessly inquire about the appeal process, when and

if

a hearing would ever be scheduled or

held, to whjch NYPD officials repeatediy refused to disclose any information, and feigned
ignorance,

115.

.4"dditionally, plaintiff repeatedly sent letters

to the Patrolman's

Benevolent

Association (hereinafter "PI}A") and their lawyers, in furtherance of pressing his appeal, to
which they repeatedly informed him that they oorild not help,

Defendants Attempt To Further Isolrte and Degrade Plaintiff by Aesigning
Telephone Switchboard
1

16.

Thereaffer, througirout

IIim to the

the summer of 2009, plaintiff oontinued to

systematically isolated from tire remainder

be

of lire precinct in the form of reassignment tcr

telephone switchboard duty.

117, While there plaintiff was subjeoted to overt attempts of
harassment
,'Z,ERO"

1

intimidation and

in the fo¡m of fellow police officers and supervising officers referring to him as a

and/or the "HOUSH MOUSE,"

18.

Additionaily, throughout his reassignment, plaintiff wítnessed further evidence of

continued corruption and subornation of perjury on numerous occasions in the form of oflicers,
commanding and subordinate, falsifying information contained

in complainant crimc reports

(UF-61's) and/or faíling 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 ooncerns for his and his fellow offioers' safety. plaintiff
was assignecl to voucher loaded weapons and was assigned to handle arïests.

Plaintiff Reports the Corruption He Has lVitnessed To Intern¿l Affairs

120,

On August 18, 2û09, in response to this campaign of retaliation and intimidation,

plaintiff s father, Larry Schoolcra.fr, contaeted David Durk, a former NYPD Detective who had
assisted Frank Serpico

in the 1970s in r¡ncovering comrption within the NYPD to seek his

counsel regarding the proper actíons to be taken.

121,

Following that conversation, David Durk contacted Brandon l)el Pozo at the

Internai Affai¡s Bu¡eau

("IAB") to apprise him of the com:ption within the 8l't

precinct.

122,

'fhereafter, on August 20, 2009 plaintiff contacted IAB dirsctiy, by filing an

Unusual Incident Reporl (UF-49). alleging that defendant CAUGHEY -- ironically the Integrity
C|ctntrol Officer

tbr the 8i't precinct -- had unlalvfuÌly entered a iocked offlce at the precinct

and

of

renroved potentially ciarnaging cli:ounents lrom SGT. WEISS' personnel file, all at the behest
SGT.V/EISS.

123. Specifically, in this repoÉ, enritled "CORRUPTION IÌ\IVOLVING

THE

INTEGRITY CONTROL PROGRAM OF TIIE 81s1'PRË,cnr¡CT", plaintiffalleged as follo¡¡,s:
Sergeant Steven Weiss (Assistant Integrity Control Ûfficer, 8l*t

Preoinct), assisted by his supervisor, a Lieutenant Timothy
Caughey (hf egrity Control Officer. 81st Precinct"). did
intentionally enter, withoul permission or authority, a locked offìce.
containing sensitive department liles, and rernoved clocuments
pertainíng to Civjlian Complaints t¡at werc inside Sgt. Weiss's
Depar"tment Personnel Foider lThese] docurnents werc å
potential obstacie with regards to Sgt. 'Weiss' future Evaluation
and Promation to New York City Police Lieutenant. Sgt, Weiss has ,
sinoe been promoted to New York City Police Lieutenanl. and is no
longer a-ssigned to the 81't Precinct,..lt would appeff ftiratl Sgt,
Weiss has benefitted greatly from his action(s).

124. This complaint was sent directly to

Chie,l Charles

V, Campisi, Chief of

the

lnten:al Affairs Bureau, via certified mail on August 24,2009.

Plaintiffls Superiors Become Aware of Plaintiffls Complaints to Internal Äffairs

1?5,

Almost irnmedialely afler inlbnaing IAB of these illegalpractices and rviclespreacl

corruption at the

8l't Precinct, IAB detectives

iepeatedìy left messages for plaintiff at the Slst

Precinct, despite the explicit dut¡r x¡ IAB to keep such complaints confrdential, efieciively and

implicitly alerting plaintiffs superiors that .he was now actively working rvith IAB

on

investigations, crininal in nature, concerning the 81tt Precinct.

126, On September 2, ?009, piaintiff

sent a writfen request fo defendant STEVE;\

MAUzuELLO requesting in writing that the appeal of his evaluation be sent directly to the Patrol

Borough Brooklyn North immediately.

127. Not only did clefenclant

STEVEN MALJzu.EI,LO läil to issue any response

reques1 but he had never even previously sent the appeal

'-

as he was mandated

1o

this

to -- nor did he

ever inform plaintiff that his appeal had been closed in April, despite plaintiff"s

repeared

inquiries.

Plaintiff Reve¡ls Rampant Illegal Conduct At the 81't PrecÍnct to the Quality Assuranee
DivÍsion of the N'YfD

128.

'I'hereafler, 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
rnisconduct he had witnessed in the 81't Precinct, including but not limited to, oommanding and
supenrising officers' manipulation of crime statistics anclenforcement of illegai quota policies,

129, In that meeting plaintiff discussed, inter

ali4, the illegal quota policy and the

underreporting, manipulation and/or falsificaiion of civilian complaints made to NYPD officials

in the I l't Precinct.

130.

Specifically, plaintiff hsd witnessed at least thirteen instances where crimes were

being undeneported in o¡der to avoid i¡rdex c¡ime ciassification

-

i,e, Felony Grand Larceny and

Robbery undeneporled to reflecl Misderneäror Lost Property, etc,

131.

Further, in order to accomplish these ends, the allegations of civilian complaints

had actually been falsifled by supewising ofñcers and in some cases u/ere never documented at

all by the NYPD,

132. On October

14,20A9, one week following the aforesaid meeting with QAD,

plaintifl was officially piaced on perfonnance monitoring by the employee management division
of the NYPD.

133,

On October 19. 2009, in an increasingly desperate attempt to suppress-plaintiffs

disclosure

of the corruption and deceptive praotices plaguing the 81*t Precinct,

CAUGHEY issued a precinct wide personnel memo to all personnel of tire
any and all calls from

IAB be first directed to his office,

defendant

81st Precinct ordering

regardiess of the specific officer IAB

was atlempting to contact.

134.
"Group

I"

On October 21, 2009, plaintiff was interviewed by telephone by members of the

Internal Affairs Bureau regarding his aliegations of missonduct against defendants

CAUGHEY And WDISS

135, On October ?1,2009, with

deliberate indifference

to plaintiff"s safety

and

welfare, IAB atternpted to contact plaintiff to discuss the substance of the LIF-49 he irad filed
against defendant CAUGI{EY on August 20,2009, a call which was routed first to defendant

CAUGHEY who was also the subject of the oomplaint.

Plaintiff Continues to Pursue His Appeal But To No Avail

t36.

'fhereafter on October 2.8,2Xlg,still unaware that hìs appeal irad been closed,

plaintiff contasted SGT DEVINO to anange

a

meeting regarding the status of his appeal,

137. At this meeting SOT DEVINO informed plaintiff

that she was ignorant to the

status of plaintiffls appeal and feigned senijments of surprise and disbelief that the process was

still ongoing.

t38. Thereafter, plaintiffs father, Larry Schoolcraft, contâcted

Mayor Bloomberg's

office to report the repeate.d and continrúng instances of comrption within the 8l't Precinct, to
which plaintiff had bore witness, and to inquire as to the reason plaintiff was being depr:ived the
right to appeal his performance evaluation,

On October 31, 2009 Plaintiff is Menaced
Previously Reported to Internal Affairs

139,

¡t lVork

by Lt, Caughey, lühom Pl¡intiff Had

Thereafler, on October 31, 2009, upon commencement of his tour

of

duty,

defendant CAUGI{DY confronted plaintiff and irnmediately ordered

plaintiff to surrende¡

his

memo book,

140, Upon confiscation of his memobook, defendant
hirnself in a room for three hours in order to make copies of

CAUGHEY prooeeded to lock

plainiifis

notes contained therein,

which at this point now includcd specific instances of the comrption and illegal activity plaintiff
had documented in preparation for his report to Conrmissioner Kelly,

l4l.

Following defendant CAUGI{EY's confiscation

of plaintiffs memobook,

defendant CAUGHEY began to exhibit menacing and threatening behavior towards plaintiff,

142. Speoifically, defendant

CAUGHEY with one hand near his gun, made continuous

menacing gesfffss directed at plaintiff
contained within

plaintiff

in an apparent: response to the evidence of

corruption.

s memabook irnplicating defendants.

Pl¡intiff Leaves lVork One Hour Early After Receiving Permission To Do So From Sgt,
Huffman

143,

Thereafler, at approximately 2:30 p.m, on October 31, 2008, Plaintiff was advised

by civilian employee P.Ä,4. Boston, who had become aware of defendant CAUGHåY's
increasingly threatening behavior, that piaintiff s safety may be in jeopardy.

144. As a resuit of this admonishment and plaintiffs independent

observations,

plaintiffs fear consequently manifested itself in feelings af sickness, at whjch time plaintiff
eiectecl

to go home rather than subject himself to potential physical harm from

defcndant

CAUGHEY,

145.

A1 approximately 2:45

p.*,

:n

October 31, 2û09, less than one hour befbre his

tow was scheduled to end, plaintifi sought permission to take sick leave, which he submitted to
SERTEA]VT RASHENNA HUFFMAN.

146, ln response to plaintiff's request,

SERGEAN'I' HUFÏ,.MAN approved plaintiff

s

release,

but following plaintiffs departure, HUFþ"MAN subsequently and rvithout

rescindpd her approval via voicemail to

reason

plaintiffs celi phone, ordering him back to the precinct

immediately.

147.

hnmediateiy upon plaintiff s arival at his horne, plaintiff contacted IAts to reporf

defendånt CAUGHEY' s threatening behavior,

148,

Thereafter, plaintiff, fea¡f'ul of the impending retaliatory acts to follow, contacted

his father, Larry Schooloraff,, to rÊport and document what had just transpíred, after which
plaintiff attempted to sleep in an efÏort to alleviate his feelings of illness,

149, While asleep, plaintiff

received

a voícemail message on his phone fiom

Dr.

Lamstein -- who had last seen plaintiff on October 27,2009, and who knew first-hand that

plaintiff had no psychiatric disorders whatsoever
defendants required

--

who was ciearly bewildered as to why

piaintiff to return to command, despite her repeated

plaintiffs supervisors that in her medical and professional opinion, plaintiff

advisements to

posed no threai to

himself or qthers, Dr. Lamstein nevertheless admonished plaintiff, presumably at defendants'
direction, that

if he dicl not retu¡n immediateiy, this would "[BLOW] UP TO A MUCH BIGGER

MESS TLIAN IPLAINTIFF] WOULD WANT."

The NYPD Threatens a *rCity.Wide Search"

150.

F

or Plaintiff If He Docs Not Refurn To Work

Additionally, on about or in between the aforesaid oorrespondence, defendant

LAUTERBORN oontacted Larry Schoolcraft inquiríng

151,

as

to plaintiff s whercabouts,

In response, at approximately 7:40 p.m. on October 31,2009, Lany Schoolcraft

retumed the câll and expìained to defendant LAUTERBORN that he had communicated with his

son who had informed him that he was at irome, feeling sick and wanled to rest, to which

deßndant LALITERBORN responded in sum and substance "ISFIOULD PLAINTIFF NOT

RETTIRN TO COMMAND], THIS

IS GOING TO GET TO BE A LARÜE

SCAI,H

EVENT.,.WHEN.'IHE BELLS AND WHIS'I'LES çO OFF ITS GOTNG TO BE A CITY 'ñiIDE
SEARCH FOR ADzuAN SCI{OOLCRAFT,''

152.

Following that statement, Larry Schoolcraft inquired as to the urgency of Adriar's

return to the command that same day, to which defendant LAUTERBORN gave no legitimate
explanation and inste¿d, in an inmeeusingly threatening manner, advised plaintiffs father that
things were going to escalate should plaintiff not return immediately.

Defend¡nts Unlawfully Enter Plaintiffln Home and lllegally Seize Him in Order to Prevent
Him From Disclosing tr¡ the Puhlic His Findings of Corruption

153.

Tirereaftcr, on Ootober 31,2009 at approximateìy 9:38 p.m., plaintiff, who was

lawfuliy present inside of his home located at 8260 88tl'Place, Apt,2L, Glendale, NY

11385,

was confronted with approximately ten (10) armed high ranking police officers, including but not

limited to, CHIEF MICHAEL MAzuNO, PAUL BROWN, and STEVEN MAUIìIELI,O, who
unlawfully enieïed his home without

a

wana¡rt. permission, or other legatly permissible reason to

do so,

154,

In addition, at leest two members of the Emergency Services Unit

fulI riot gear with helmets and tasers .. also illegaliy entered plaintiff

155,

s apartn:ent,

Upon defendants' unlarvful entry into plaintiffls home, the

defendants ordered plaintiff

to get

dressed and commanded

- dressed in

af'orementioned

him to return to the SlstPrecinct

without any legitimate or iaçful explanation.

156,

In a remarkable dispiay of caimness under the circumstances, plaintiff repeatedly

and composedly requested the reâsons why defendants wore unlawfully

in his

horne

commanding him back to work against his will, to which defendants pretextually responded that

they were "worrisd" and "concerned" for plaintifPs safety and wellbeing despite plaintiffs

repeâted assurances tirat he was merely feeling sick and not

othors and despite the fact that

in any way a danger to himself or

plaintiffs own NYPD appointed psychologist had previously

informed defendants that same clay that any such fears were medically unfounded.

157.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiff was inJ'ormed that he was under suspension for

leaving work early that day,

158,

F-urther,

plaintiff expressly acknowìedged that were there work

consequences for his departure, defendants should

relateci

simply follow the normal protocol and file the

proper papcrwollc to which plaintiff would respond accordingly,

Defcnd¿nts Threaten To Treat Plaínúiff as an "Enotionally Disturbed Person"
Not Leave His Apartment rrVoluntarily"

159.

Despite

plaintiffs overwhelmingly

If

He Does

reasonable response, which was in total and

utter compliance with NYPD protocol and practice, defendants responded with a continued
refusal to leave plaintiffs home, subsequentiy ordering irim while armed, to the hospital illegally
and againsi his

will, to which plaintiff

responded

by repeatedly a.sserting his rights unde¡ Ncw

York lar.i'to refuse uffüanted ¡¡edical treatment,

160, In retalíation to plaintìff s assertion of his rights, and with the knowledge

that

plaintiff potentially possessed evidence of defendants' criminal activity and conuption,
defendant MICHAEL

MARINO responded with the following ultimatum; "YOU HAVE A

CHOÍCE. YOU GET UP LIKE

A MAN Aì{D PUT YOUR

SHOES ON AND WALK INTO

THAT BUS fambulance], OR THEY'RE GOINC'fO TREAT YOU ÂS AN g,D,P. lemotionally
disturbeci personl AND

i61.

THAT MEANS HANDCUFFS."

Immediately thereafter, a series of verbal exchanges occurred between plaintifT

and defendant CHIEF M.ARINO,

in

which piaintiff calmly and repeatedly expressed

defendants that he was refusing nn¡, more medical atlenfion and refused

to

to be involuntarily

removed flom his home.

162.

Aware that his attempts to threaten and coerce plaintiff into complicity with

defendants' unlawful scheme

to

otherwise silence plaintiff were fi¡tile, defendant CHIËF

MICHAEL MARINO irnpatiently stated in sum and substance: "ALL RIGHT, ruST TA.KE,
HIM, I CAN'T FUCKINT STAND HIM ANYMORE" and commanded that the police ofñcers
present at the locatio¡r to

forcibly take plaintiff into custocly.

163. Al allrelevant times on Ocrober 31, 2009, defendant CHIEF GERALD NLLS0Ì.;
was âv/axe

of

defendant MARINO's actions and

in fact, expressly

MARiNO to unlawlully enter plaintiffs residence, remo\.Ìe
involuntarily conf,ne plaintiff in

a

plaintiff

autirorized clefendant
against his

will,

and

psychiatric ward.
.

164,

Upon information and belief defendant LIEUTENANT ELISE I{ANLON also

intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendanls faisely ciassified plaintiff as

an

"Emotionally Disturbed Persono' in order to e.ffectuâte plairitiffs involuntary removal from his
home.

1,65, Upon information and belief

defþndant LIEUTEIIANT 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 defendânt LIEU'IENANT ELISË HANLON also

intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants provided.ïAMAICA HOSPITAL $,ith
false information regarding piaintifPs classification as an 'lEmotionaliy Disturbecl Person," in
orde¡ to effectuate

piainliffls involuntary confinement,

Pl¡intiff Is Violently Attacked and Foreibly Removed From IIis ûwn Home against

HÍs

\ryiü

167.

immediately thereafter, several defendant police officers, inciuding defendants

L'f, WILIAM GOUGI-I, SG'f. KURT DLI{CAN,

and

LT. CHRISTOPHËR BROSCHART,

pulled plaintiff out of his bed, physically assaulted him, tore his clothes as they th¡ew hím to

the

floor, illegaily strip-searched him and violently handcuffed him with his arms behind hjs back,
causing excruciating pain to his wrists, shoulders, arms, neck and back.

168,

With plaintiff bound onthe floor, alluding to the option plaintiff had been given

of ignoring corruption and illegality, defsndant CI'IIEþ' MARINO walked over to him and with
his boot on plaintifPs face, stated:

169,

"lT DJDN'T HAVE fO BE L,IK.ä THÏS,'

Defendant CHIEF MARINO then sat on plaintiff s bed as his offtcers, following

his commands, illegally searched plaintiffs body and recovered a digital reco¡der that plaintiff
was holding, Afraid of what piaintiff might have recorded during this incidenl, defendant
CHIEI¡ MARINO illegâUy seized the recorder himself, stating contemptuously that plaintiffwas

"BEING CUTE" by trying to record the incident.

.

170, Additionally, NYPD

spokesperson Paul Brown wâs present outside of plaintiff

s

apartment during fhe aforementioneci illegal home invasion on October 31,2û09, for the sole
purposc of proviciing to any potential members of the media who might be present during this
abduction a false and misleading account of the facts and circumstances srirrounding plaintifls

involuntary oonfinement,

Defend¡nts Conduct an lllegal Search
Misconduct b¡'the NYPD

'

l7l,

of PlaintifPs Apartment, Seizing

Evidence of

The¡eafter, defendants illegally searched plaintiffs home and illegally seized

substantial evidence of com.rption within.the 81'1 Precinct which plaintiff had gathered detailing

the enforcement of iliegal quotas and the perjurious manipulation of police repofis, as well

plaintiff

s notes

172.

as

regarding his complaints against the 81't precinct.

Specifically, defendants illegaiiy seized a draft

of his Report to the Police

Commissioner, Raymond Kelly, entitled

"A Patrolman's Repofi to tl¡e Commissioner," and

details of his collaboration with retired New York City Polìce Detective/Lieutenant David Durk.
as

well

as the

aforementioned digital tape recorder.

173. In fact, plaintiffs landlord specifically

observed defendants leave plaintíffs

apârtment carrying multiple manila folders in their hands.

174,

Foilowing defendants' illegal entry, search and seizure of plaintiff s home, per$on

and effects, plaintifT was then placed in restraints and carried from his home against his

full view of friends and neighbors by multiple armed

will in

members of the New York City Police

Deparfment.

Defendants Make Blatantly False and Misleading St¡tements to the Hospital, Resulting in
Plaintíff s Confinement in the Psychiatric Ward

175,

Thereafter, defendants involuntarily transporled

psychiatric ward,

Hospital

in an'intentional and premcditated fashion and convinced doctors fo have

plainliff involuntarily admitted

176.

plair*ifïto the .lamaica

as an emotionally disturbed person,

Specifically defendants falseiy claimed that plaintiff "LEFT IVORI{ EARLY

AF'|ER GETTING AGITATED AND CURSINû HIS SUPERVISOR" and tirat the

police

.,FOLLOWED HIM HOME AND HE HAD BARzuCADED HIMSELF, AND THE DOOR
HAD TO BE I]ROKEN TO GET TO HIM,"

177, It should be noted that the aforementioned

false and perjured statements were

emphatically ploven false by piaintifls landlord, who provided infbrmation that plaintiffs door
was never forcibiy entered, but in fact the landlord had provided keys to defbndânt MARINO in
response to the false pretense provided by defendants that plaintiff was "suicidal."

178,

Further, defendants also falsely slaimed that plaintiff

"INITIAI,LY AGRËED TO

GO T/ITH THEM FOR EVÂI,UATION, BUT ONCË OUTSIDE, HE

RI¡/ AND HAD TO BE

C:HASED,''

179, These st¿tements

were also proven to be demonsffably false by RMT records,

o'had
to be
which clearly and flatly refute defendants' claims that plaintiff "ran'o away and
chaserj",

18û. At no point on October 31, ?009 did plaintiff
behavior that defendants' falsely alleged in order to secure

exhibit or engage in any of the

piaintifl's involuntary confinement,

Plaintiff Is Handcuffed and Resrrained in the Emergency Room, Where Hc is

Denied

Fundamental Rights and Treated as a Criminal

181, After his anival to Jam¿ica Hospital, plaintiff
more th¿m nine hours, during which time he was denied use

was handcuffed to a grrrncy for

cf phone, water, food or bathroom

facilities.

182.

When plaintiff was finaliy allowed to nrake a phone call at approximately 6:Û0

a,m.!'one of the NYPD members watching over him, SGT, FREDEzuCK SAWYER, said out
loud: "HEY, I'fHCIUGHT'PERPS WEREN'T Ai¿OWED TO USE THä PHONE." Thereafter,
SGT. SAWYER forcibly disconnected the phone and hung

it up,

thereby instantly terminating

plaintiff's phone call,

183.
assisted

SGT, SATVYER then said "OKAY, NOVy'!", at which point SGT. SAtrVYER,

by fìve other mernbers of the New Ynrk City Police departmenl

* inciuding

SGT,

SI-IANTEL JAMES. P.O, RAYMOND MILLIìR and P,O. ARTUR SADOWSKJ, antl lrvo armed

police officers

-

forcibly grabrbed plaintiff-s 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 placed a second handcuff on plaintiff s left ha¡d so tightly that
and caused his hand to turn blue,

it

caused exoruciating pain,

'Ward
Plaintiff Spends Three Full Days In The Emergency Room of the Psychiatric

184.

F¡om October

3i, 2009 thrc'ugh November 2,2009^ plaintiff was involuntarily

confined in tJre ernergerrcy room of the psyclriatic ward of Jamaica Hospital,

185, While

there plaintiff was kept involuntarily confined with otlier psychiatric

patients in a room that had no windows and was secured by double locked sequential doors, with
a security guard present at ali times standing oulsicie,
t

86.

During this time, plaintiff was forced to reiinquish all of his clothing and personal

possessions, The only clothing plaintiff was given v/as â hospital

gown, He was not eve.n

allowed to wear underwear,

187,
bed to sleep

Further, during the first three days in the hospital, plaintiff was not even given a

in,

Rather, he was forced to sleep every night on ä gumey located in the hallway

the ernergency room of the psychiatric ward, As a result, there were aiways lights on

of

and

plaintiff had no privacy whatsoever.

188.

Most importantly, during this time. plaintiff was denied access to thc outside

world" Plaintiff repeatedly requested an opportunity to speal with internal affairs, ancl to have
photographs talcen of his multiple bmises, but these requests were steadfastly ignored by doclors
and hospital staff.

i89,

Afler th¡oe days, piaintiff was fr:m:a1ly admitted into the psychiatric

wzu'd ar

JI-IMC, where he spent the remainder of his confinement.

190,

I)uríng this timi, plaintiff was forced to cohabit with índividuals who had severe

psychiatric disorders ard engaged in bizarre and unsettling behavior.

l9l,

For example, onc patient routinely combed his haìr wit}r feces, whiie another

pàtienf continuously u'alked around the unit wearing bloody bandages on

hi.q

wrists and neck.

192.

Additionally. another patient trìed repeatedly and persistently to induce herself

to vomit, which she succeeded in doing dght near plaintiff. Still other patients i¡: the unit woultl
routinely sorearr and yell until they were foroibly sedated.

193.

There were no clclcks in the unit, nor rù/ere there any

SCHOOLCRAFT

wa.q

mirrors. PiaintiffADzuAN

completely cut off from the outside world, a¡d there was nothing he could

dc it about it.

Plaintiff s Involuntary Confinement Continues for Six Full I)ays, in Clear Yiolation of New
York Law

t94. For six frrll days, plaintiff ADRLAN SCHOOLCRAFT was confined against his
will in the psychiatric ward of .lsmaica I'lospital,

195.

Tlhis confinement was unlawfi¡l,

illegal and in clear violatiou of both New York

law and the Constitution of tire United States.

196,

There was no nedical basis whatsoever

for

dctaining. plaintiff ADRTAN

SCHOOLCRAFT in a psyohiatric ward, much less for six days.

197, To the contrår)/, hospital records make clear that plaintiff
SCIJOOLCRAITT r,vas at

ADRIAN

all times, lucid, rational and frllly coherent and exhibited no

signs

whatsoever of presenting a danger to himself or to others, ln fact as defþndant ISAKOI; himself
noted:

During the observation in the unit without taking any medications"
patient was appropriate in interaotion, calrn and not agitated. I.le
denjed suicidal or homicìdal ideations, He was not expèriencing
any paranoid ideations, but was concemed about issues in the
precinct. After observation f<¡r a t'cw clays on the uni.t, there weye
no significant psychiätric symptoms to treät with medications,

198,

In fact, from the ver),

ot¿tsel, when

plaintiff was first exsminecl af JHMC, it

was

manifestly clear that piaintiff was not in need of any psychiatric treatment, much less involuntary

conflnement in a psychiahic wa¡d. As the hospital itself noted about plaintiff:

He is coherent, relevanT \¡/ith goal directed speech and gcrod eye
contact, He is initahie with appropriate affect, FIe denies
hallucination .,, He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation at
the present time, l{is memory and concentration is intact, He is
alert and oriented ,,,.

199. Plaintiffls clea¡ rnental

state was so obvious that one of the dootors who initially

examined plaintiff stated out loud that

it

was 'oridiculous" that he was even brought to the

hospiøI, and assured plaintiff that he would be going home shortly.

200,

Notwithstanding

this fact, and

despite

the objective medical evidence

documenling that plaintifi did not meet the psyohologicai crite¡ia
patient requiring conlinement, plaintiff ren:ained
any

uniawfilly

of ar: emotionaìly distu¡bed

and invoirurtarily detained without

juslification for six (6) clays,

201,

Additionally, plaintiff was denied tire right to vote on Novembe¡ 3, 2009, despite

repeateclrequests to do so, a fact that is even documented in the medical records of JI{MC,

702, On November

5,2009, plaintiff was suddenly deemed safe, despite no change in

plaintiff s prior behavior, md released from Jamaica Hospital.

2A3.

in detaining plaintiff ADR1AN SCHOOLCRAFT'far six full days against his will,

defendant JHMC violated the express provisions of Mental I{ygiene Law $ 9.39(a). This statute

provides,

i_Etg¡

giia, 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 or
other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself' or 2) "a substantial risk of phyçical
harm to other perscrns as manifesred by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are
placecl in reasonable fear

204,

of serious physical hann,"

A.dditionaliy, defendant ALDANA-BAK\IIER violated the express provisions of

Mental Hygiene Law $ 9,39(a) she failed to perform the necessary tests ancl examinations in
order to determine that

piaintiff was either l) a "substantial risk of physical harm to himself

as

rnanifested by threats or attempts at suicide or other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous
to himself' or

2)"a substantiai risk of physical harrn to other persons

as manifested by homicidal

or other violent behavior by wltich others are placed in reasonable fea¡ of serious physical hårm,"

205.

Furlher, defendant ALDANA-BERNIER falsifred hospital reports

secure plaintiffs continued confinement in the psychiatric ward when she noted

in

order to

"PATiENT IS A

DANGER l'O HIMSELF," without perform.ing any medical test to subslantiate this.

206.

As defendant JI{MC's own records make clear, neither of these criteria wås even

remotely satisfied, Accordingly, defendant's continued detention

of plaintiff

ADRIAN

SCHOOLCRAI'T was â gross violation of legal, medical and ethical standards, and as such, was
a clear deparhre

from good and accepted medical praetices.

2A7, Fina.lly, as a final insult, foliowìng his release f¡om JHMC, plainliff
rcceived a

actualiy

bill in the amount of'$7,185,00 for h\s in,voluntary confrnement, for which

JHMC

actually collecled money.

Tbe NY?D's Crucial Role

In

Ensuring PlaintÍffs Contiuued Detention

At

J¡maica

Hospital

208.

tlpon information and belief, all of the aforementioned acts up to and including

plaintifls involurtary

confinem.ent were part

effoÍ to silence plaintiff

of a deliberate, concentrated and

premeditated

and intimidate any other members of the NYPD who sought to disclose

tbe plague of comrption and iliegalities within the departmenl.

209,

In frrtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants entered plaintiff s home on

October 31,2009 and illegally seized plaintiff and evidence of NYPD comrption and misconduct

plaintiff had prevíousiy gathered,

210, In fl.¡therance of this objective, the NYID

defendants conspired to, and did

intentionally falsify evidence and submitted

it to JHMC

plaintiff committed to its psychiatric ward

in an effort to sÌlence, intimidate,

otherwise deem

staft' for the sole puryose

of

having

threaten or

plaintiff incredible should the evidence of com:ption ¿nd misconduct within

plaintiff's possession ever surface.

zil,

L: furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants maintained

contact with

JHMC for the six (6) days to enslre that plaintiff ADzuAN 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 pl.aintiff about his release date, defencianf ISAKOV

responded that he "WANTED TO HEAR FROM

'IHe pç¡¡lCEl DEPAR'IMENT

FIRST"

before he could &nswer that qucstion and tell plainti.ff when he would be released.

71.3, In allowing tlie NYPD to dictate the medical poiicy at JHMC, and in
disregarding the legal requirements

of Mental Hygiene law $ 9,39(a) by

utterly

igr:roring objective

medical evidense that plaintifl w'às nol a danger ro himself or others, defendant JHMC departed

from good and accepted medical practice by unlawfully and involuntarily confining plaintiff for
six days.

2t4.

Additionally, defendant JHMC, in furtherance of its agreement and conspiracy

with NYPD officials, explicitly and/or tacitiy formed an agreement to involuntarily
plaintiff despite objective medical evidence mandating his release, as a "favor" to

confine

clefendant

officers in furtherance of their scheme to ultimately,silence piaintiff and/or otherwise impeach
his credibility,

Defendants' Egregious Conduct Forces Plai¡tiff To Move Upstate, Yet Defendants'
Campaign of Harassment And IntimÍdation Continues
-

?15. As a result of the fcrrgoing, the NYPD

defendants, through

a

campaign

of

ha¡assment and intirnidation, forced plaintiff to move to upstate New York, approximately three

hundred fifty (350) miles away from New York City.

216,

Not'¡¿ithstanding this move, between Desember 2009 and continuing on tluough

the present, armed I'IYPD officials including SERGIiANT zuCHARD WAIL, SERGEANT

ROBERT W" O'HARE, LIEL]THNAN]' THOMAS HANLEY, CA}TAIN TIMOTHY
TRAINER, SiIRGÐANT SONDRA WILSON and several other NYPD defenclants continued
their relentless efforts to silence, harass andlor otJrerwise harm plaintiff anci his f¿ther in the form
of making over a dozen appearances at his home in upstate New York,

217.

During these "visits", the NYPD has dispatched teams of amed detecÍives and

olåer armed members of the New Yo¡k City Police Depafment, including SERCEANT
SONDRA WILSON. CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY,

SERCEANT ROBERT W. O'HARË snd SERCBANT RICHARD T/ALL

to

harass and

intimidate plaintiff by pounding anci kieking on his door and shouting "NYPD. WE KNOW
YOU'RE IN']'HERT, OPEN 1JPI!I''

218.
three hundred

In one instance. on f)eeember 9, 2û09, one the aforer¡enlioned defenda¡rts drove

fifty

(350) miles outside of NYPD julisdiction on taxpayer's money

-

mereiy to

"spy" on plaintiff ttrough his bedroom window.

219. ln response to this

biatant and endless attempt to cr¡ntinuonsly harass and

intimidate piaintiff, piaintiff moved his bed out of said becfuoom in ordsr to prevent imminent
physical and emotional harm upon his person.

220.

Notwíthstanding this action, armed NYPD officials inciuding SERGEANT

RICHARD WALL, SËRGEANT ROB}ìRT'W, O'HÁRE, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY,

CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, SERGEANT SONDRA V/ILSON aud sone of the

other

NYPD defendants continue, up and tb,rough the present, to come to his home, repeatedly pound

on his door, photograph him, and engage in efforts designed to purposefully intimidate
harass

and

plaintiff in a tireless effort to silence him once and for all.

Plaintiff

s

Allegations of Corruption and Fraud Within the NYPD Are Substantiated

, ZZL On Jrme 23, 201CI, the Quality Assurance Dìr,ision within the NYPD issued a
report of its findings regarding the allegations of comrption made by .Adrian Schoolcraft prior to
his u:lawful imprisonment and detention on October 31,2009.

222,

The frndings of the investigation substantiated the allegations that complaint

repofls for index crimes were not being entered into the Omni System conrplaint clatabase

and

that crimes were being improperly reportecì in order to avoid index c¡ime classìfrcation.

223.
allegations

Specifically. the general findings

of the

investigation stemming from the

of corruption made by Officer Schoolcrafr concluded the a substantial amount of

civilian complaints that should have been classified as index crimes were either

being

downgraded or not entered into the database at all"

224.

Further, the investigaiion fbund that this fraudulent crime rec,ording was the result

of a widespread pattern and practice, whìch created inceniives to downgrade index crimes ancl/or
refuse to record index crimes âs rÊported by civilians,

Defendants' Pattsrn of Miscouduct and Unlawful Behavior, ¡nd the NYPD's Deliber¡te
Indifference to Discip linin g Supervising Officers.

225,

The incidents set forth above wÞre not isolatçd ovents, but rather, rvere part of an

ongoing pattern of illegal and unlawiul oonduct on the part of the defendants herein,

226,

of

In fact, man)/ of the NYPD defendants named ín this action have been the subject

intemal affairs investigations and/or departrnental' hearings concerning allegations of

misconduct, as set forth below

Defendant Marino's Prior Misconduct

227.

F'or example,

in

prior to the incidents allegcd

CIctober 2A07, more than a year

herein, defer:¡dant CHIHF MICHAEI, MARINO wa.s the subject

of

n high-profile investigation

involving the illegal clistribution of anabolic steroids and hun:an growth hormone at a Brooklyn
pharmacy,

228.

Specifically, defendant CFIIEF MICHAEL MARINO was implicated

scandal when investigators raided Lowen's pharmacy

in Bay Ridge, I3rooklyn,

in

this

seizing an

estimated $7 million worih of steroids and human growth irormone.

229.

As a result of this raid, investigators found sferoid prescriptions for Marino,

as

well as six other members of the NYPD,

nA,

Despite his dsnial of the use and/or distribution of illegal and

illicit

contraband,

defendant CI{IË.F MICI-IAEL MARINO had previously acknowledged publicly

of

having

miraculously "bulhed up fiom 152 pounds to 190", resulting in "eighteen inch arms" and an
ability to "bench press 350 pounds".

231.
herein

-

steroids,

Further, on September ?5. ?009 * just one month prior to the cvents described

defendant

MARINO faced an internal NYPD trial arising from his illegal use of

in which it was aileged that defendant CFIIEF MARINO violated the NYPD's

drug

policy by using testosterone for bodybuilding purposes.

232.
defendant

Despite these allegations and NYPD's ongoing investigation, absoluteiy none

of

M¡\RINO's authority or cluty was mociified in any way.

Defendant Nelson's Prior Misconduct

?33.

Defendant CHJ.EF TERALD NELSON has aiso been the suþect of at least two

NYPD internai investigations for grossly improper and unprofessional couciuct,

234.

The first incident took place on February ?5, 2005, when defendant Nelson, then

chief of the School Safety Dii,ision, add¡essecl 850 School Safety Agents from Queens.

235,

During this address, defendant CI{IEF GER.AI"D NELSON refened to studsnts'

mothe¡s ñs'obitches" who should be k¡ooked down. handcuffed ancl arrestecl when tliey interfere

with an agent's work"

236,
..THESE

Specifrcally, CHIEF GËR"Á,LD NELSON instructed the agents as follows:

MOTHARS. WHO ARE REAL BITÇHES, NEE,D TO BE BODY SLAMMED DOWI\_

'fO TI"IE GROLIND. C]UFFED AND ARRES'I'ED.''

237.

As a result, defendant CHIEF GfiRALD NELSON was allegedly reprimanded by

NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly for these grossly improper remarks, however, defend¿nt
CHIEF GERALD NELSCIN was never actually given any meaningful punishment by the NYPD,

?38,
incident

*

To the contrary, on Deccmb er 23, 2006

*

less than two years after the subjecî

defendant CHIEF GÊRALD NELSON was asTonishingly promoted

to

Borough

Comma¡rder of Brooklyn North, notwithstanding the incident which took place on Febnrary 25,
2005.

239.
engaged

Additionally, in June 2008, defendant CHIEF GERALD NELSON, once again

in grossly improper conduct resulting in another internal affairs investigation..

240.

Speeificaliy, on June 10, 2008, P.O, Shelron Smikle matle a report to the Intemal

Affairs Bureau that a SergeanÍ at the 83rd precinct had called him a "NIGGIiR,"

241.
NELSON
Precinct

Thereafter,

* just

as

it

iAts

'oloâkçd"

this complaint to defendant CI.IIEF

had "ieaked" plaintiffs IAB complaint to his s'upervisors

GERALD

il

the 81't

- leading defendânt Neison to orde¡ P.û, Smikle and his partner, P,O. Blanch O'Neal,

to apperx at his office.

242. The aforesaicl rneeting ocóu¡red on

June 12, 2008 wherein defendant CHIEF

GERA.LD NELSON berated both officers for having filed the complaint, stating: "WË HAVE
FRIENDS ON'I}TE IAB AND YOU'RE FLJLL OF SHITI''

243, Dcfenclant

Nelson then continuecl his tirade, søeaming: "SO V/I-IAT IF HE

CALLED YOU A NIGÛER'7 IF YOU CAN''I'HANDLE IT, RESTGNI"

244.

Therealler. defendant CHIEF GARAi,D NET",SON refer¡ed to P,O, Smikle as a

"DOLLAR VAN DRIVER", and told him to "GO BACK '1'O YOI]R COLINTRY,"

ancl

.'OET THE FUCK OUT OF MY OFFICEI"
instructed him to

245,

Subsequently,

in retaliation to any offrcers who made their complaints

defendant CHIEF GËIRALD NELSON threatened:
DTSCIPLINE THEM

?46.

"lF I

SEE,

public,

THIS IN 'I'HE PAPER, I T/ILL

ÂOAIN, I DO}'¡'T'NËIJD T]H]S IN MY CAREER,''

Despite these allegations and NYPD's ongoing invesligation, absoiutely none of

defbndant NELSON's authority or duty was modifi.ecl in any way,

Defendsnt Mauriello's Misconducú

247, Defendmt MAIIRIBLLO has also been the subjeot of an inte¡:nal affairs
investigation.

248,

As a direct result of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOI,CIìAFT'S allegations, IAB

is

investigating defondant MATIRIELLO' s manipulation of crime statisti cs.

249.

Specificallv, defendant M.A.URIELLO routinely fabricated crime reports resulting

in violent felonies being downgraded to pettT misclemeanors, creating the appearance thal

the

81st Precinct's crime rate was much lower statistically than in reality.

25A.

Further, dcfendant MAURIEL,I,O also commanded ofiìcers to increase their

"activity" and meet their quotas, instructing them on how to take people into custody illegally

and without probable cause,

251,

Additionally, as evidence of these directives, Sgt. Raymond Stukes and Offrcer

l|ector Tirado of the 81tt 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 IAB agent) attempt to seli bootleg cigarettes to two people, when in fact it had never
occurred,

252.
defendant

Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs aforementioned allegations against

MAIJRIIiLLO were conJirmed by the internal affairs investigation, absolutely

none

of

dcfendant MAUzuELLO's authorit¡'or duty was modified in any way,

253.

As a result of tire foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT sustained, lnrer

a/ia, bodiiy injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, entbartassmenl, humiliation,
and deprivation of his coristitutional rights.

254.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADzuAN SCHOOLCI|AFT was deprived

his liberty, was cienied fr¡ndamental constitutional rights, was publícly

of

embanassed and

humiliatcd, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was caused to suffer physical iqiuries
to his head, neck, back and arms, was ïnvoluntarily confined to hospital treatment and was forced

to incur substantial expenses,

rrRsT cLArM FOR RELTpF
DITPRMTION OF FnDERAL RLçHTS UNDER

255. Piaintiff
paragraphs numbered

42 U.S.ç.

I

1983

r€peats, reiterates and realleges eäch ancl every allegation cont¿ined in

"1" through "254u with the same force and effect as if fully'set forth

herein,

?56, Alt of the aforemenfioned
I

For all oiaims asseñed under 42 USC

$

acts

of

defendants,l their agents, servants and

1983, including conspiracy to violate 42 USC

$

1983, the lenn "defendants"

employees, were sarried out under the color of state law.

257, All of the aforementioned acts deprived plaintiff ADRIÀN SCHOOLCRAFT of
the rights, privileges a¡d immunitíes guæanteed

to

citizens of the United States by the First,

Fou¡th, Fifth, and Foufieenth Arnendments to the Constitution of the Urrited States of Amerisa,
and in violation of 42 U.S.C, $ 1983.

258.
defendants

The acts complained of were can'ied out by the aforementioned individual

in their capacities

as police or

FDNY officers, with all the actual and/or apparcnt

authority attendant thereto,

259.
defendants

The acts complained

in their

of were carried out by the aforementioned

capacities as police or

practices, procedures, and the rules
Department and the

FDNY officers, pursuanf to the

individual

oustomso usages,

of the City of New York, the New York City

Police

New York City }rire Department, all uncler the supervision of'ranking

officers of said department.

26A,
engaged

in

Defendants, collectively and indivicl.ually, while acting under color of state iaw,

conduct which constituted â custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the

respective municipaìity/authority, which is fbrbidden by the Constitution of the United States.

sEcoNp cI{ArM FoR F,ELrEr
yrol,,{TroN or FrRsT AMENDMEXLBìTG}ITS UNDER

26l,

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates

anci realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs '01" through "26iQ" with the same fbrce and effect as

262,

42 U,S.C. S 1983

if fully set forth

herein.

l'iYPD defèndants infiingemenl upon and violation of plaintiff s rights protected

under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended tcl harm plaintiff, and

shall not inch¡de defendant IHMC, as no federal clairns are boing asserted against JHlvfC

to place a chiiiing effect upon the exercise of such rights by plaintiff and other percons as is their

right, as provided by the U.S, Constitution and exercise of such rights,

263,

Further, following plairitiffs suspension on October 31, 2009 the NYPD

defendants unconstitutionally imposed this prior restraint on
defendants to silence, intimidate, th¡eaten and prevent

plaintiff s speech in an eflbrt by

piaintiff from disclosing the evidence of

com:ption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting ærd documenting to the media a¡d the
public at large.

764.

Additionally, NYPD defendants also seized plaintiffls personal notes and othe¡

effects regarding his complaints against the Slstprecinct

in an effort to prevent said material

from being disclosed to anyone and especially members of the news media and victims of the
aforem entioned corruption.

265,

Fu¡ther, defendants involuntarily cc.rmmitted pJaintiff 1o the psychiatrìc lvard of

Jamaica Hospital as an cmotionaliy dislurbed person and following lris release made repeated

trips hundreds of miles outside of their jurisdictinn to his home in upstâle New York in

a

continued elïort to harass ând intimidate him in ordcr to prcvent his speech lrom bcing uttered.

766.

The aforementioned conduct resulted in a shilling eff'ect on plaintiffls

speech

thereby physicaliy preventing his speech from.being uttered to the media and pubiic at large; or
alternativel,v, to ulfimateiy discredit his speech when and if

it were to be uttered by making him

appeff 'iemotionally distwbed."

267,

Moreover, the allegations and evidence of co:ruption, misconduct and a fraud

upon the public at large, which plaintiff was gathering and preparing to disclose, was eventually
inveslìgated by the Quality Assurance Division,

268.

Additionally, on June 23, 201.A the allegations of corruption. misconduct

and

ûard upon the public in misclassi$ing, not classifying and falsifying civilian complaints
order

to avoid index uime classification were substantiated by the I.{YPD Quality

in

Assurancc

Division,

?69,

Further NYPD defendants' actions violatsd plaintiff's First Amendment right to

speak out as citizen regarcling a matter of extreme pubiic concern, r.vhich constituted and û'aud on

the public and a breach of the public trust

-

namely widcspread corruption! iliegal practices and

the manipulation of civilian complaints by the very samô individuals sworn to protect the public
at large.

27A.

Moreover, following the home invasion of October 31, 2009 at approximately

9:40 p.rn. plaintiff was suspencted by the NYPD, thus rendering disclosure of the evidence of
com;ption and misconduct within the police department not pursuant to any function as a police
officer but purely as a citizen regarding matters of public concern.

27I. All of the actions taken by defendants following plaintiffs suspension were
directly in vioiation of his rights as secured by the First Amendment of the Consritution.

272.

Moreover the actions taken by NYPD defendants following plaintiff s suspension

on October 31,2009 in oontin$ing to involuntary confine him at IHMC nnd relentlessly
harassing, threatening and intimidating him at his new home

plaintiff's First Amenclment right

as he was oontinuing

in

upstate New York violated

to aftempt to disclose information to the

public at large tirat the largest Foüce Department in the tJnited States had committed serious and
continuous breaches of the public trust,

273.
speech

NYPD defenda¡rts continued to attempt to impose this prior restraint on plaintiff

in an effort to silence, intimidate, tlireaten and prevent plaintifi from

s

d"isclosing the

evidence

of corruption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting anci documenting to the

nledia and the pubiic

a1

274, NYPD

large

.

defendant's aforemenlioned conduct was not autl'rorized

by law

and

instead constituted a continued aftempt to restrain plaintiff's speech f¡om ever being uttered,
which

i

s presrir:rptively

275,

unconstitutional"

Further, NYPD defendmts' acticrns continued

to deprive plaintiff's First

Amendment right to speak out as citizen regarding a rnatter of extreme puiriic concem, namely
widespread comrption and illegal pracl,ices by the very sãne individu¿ls swom to protect the

pubiic at large.

276,

As such, NYPD defendants conduct was in direct vioiation of plaintiffls right to

f¡eedom of speech as secured by ttre First ¿nd Fourteenth Amendments,

277,. As a result of the foregoing, piaintìffs liberty was restricted for an extended
period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated, subjected to halrclcuffing, md
other physical reshaints in an attempt to resrain hjm from exercising his rights protocted under
the Fìrst Amendmcnt to the lJnited States Constitutio¡r and with the intenr to harm piaintiff, and
ro place a chiliing effect upon the exsrcise of such rights by

plaintiff and other petsons.

THIRD CL.A.IKFOR- RELI4 r
FALSE .4RREST {rNppR 42 L].S.C, S 1e83

278, Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in
paragraphs numbered

"1" through "277" with the same force and effect as if fully

set forth

herein.

279, As a result of the aforesaid

concluct by defendzurLs, plaintiff was subjected to

illegai, improper and falsç arresl by the defendants a¡rd taken into custody and cau,sed to
falsely imprisoned, detained, and confined, without any probable cause, privilege or consent.

be

280. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs
period of time, he was put

liberty was restricted for an extended

in fear for his safety, and he was

h.umiliated and subjected to

handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIET
MALTflO_US ABUSE OF BROCESS UNDER 43, U.S.C.

2S1, Plaintiff

repçåts, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs o'1" through "280" with the same force and effect as

282.

I le8l

Defbndanu issued legal process

to

if fully

set forth herein.

place plairrtitr ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFI'

under arrest,

283.

Deferidants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain collateral objectives outside the

legitimate onds of the iegal process,

?84.

Defendants arrested plaintiff

in

order

to

obtain the collateral ob.iective of

preventing plaintiff from appealing his performance evaluation.

285,

f)efendants arrested plaintiff

in order to obtain

the collateral objective of

preventing plaintiff from disciosing the aforementioned evidence of NYPD misconduct and
comrption plaintiffhad been collecting ând docunenting.

286,

Defendânts acted with intent to do harm to plaintifi ADRIAN SCIIOCILCRAFT,

without excuse or justification.

287, As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff s liberty

was restricted for an extenderl

period of time, he was put in fear for hís safety, and he was humiliated and subjected to
handcuffing and other physical ¡estraints, without probable cause.

FIFTH CLåN,I'FO8 REI¿IEF
EXçESSrj¡E FORC-q UNpJBg.U.S,p.

igg.

S

l?83

Piaintiff lepeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered "1'o through

"287" with the samc force and effect as if fully set forth

herein.

289.

The level of force employed by defendanls was objectively unreasonable a¡rd in

violation of the constituti<¡nal rights of the plaintiff.

290.

¡Ls a resuit of the fbregr:ing, pLaintiff

ADRIAN SCHOOL.CRAFT sustained, lnlar

alia, bocìily injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension,

embanassment, and

humiliation, and depivation of his constitutional rigltts.

såxTH cç"A{M FoR RITLIEF

291.

Plaintiff repcats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered o'l'o through o29A"

with the same force and effect as

if fully set forlh

herein,

292,

'ilhe defendants had an affirmative duty to intercede when

plaintifls constitutional

rigÏru were being violated in defendants' presence by the use olexcessive foroe.

293,

Dc.fendants further violated

piaintiffs constitutional rights when they failed to

intercede and prevent the violatjon o:: fi¡:ther violation of plaintiff s constitutional rights mrd the
injuries or further injuries caused

2g4, The ciefendants

a.s

a result

of said failure,

had an affirmalive duty to intercede wl:en plainriffls constitutional

rights were being violated in defendants' presenÇe by falsifying evidence of probable cause to
anest plaintiff,

295.

As a result of the clefendants' failure to intercede when plaintif'f s constitutional

rights were being violated in defandants' presence, plaintiff sustained, inter alia, physical and
emotional injruies.

s[:vENTH çLAIM rOR RELIET
UNLA\ryT'UL SRARCH AND ENTRY UNDER 42 U.S,C. $ 1983-

296.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates anrì realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" through "295" with the same force and effect as if fully

set forlh

hsrein.

297, As a result of the afi:resaid
possessions *,ere

concluct

by

defendants, plaintiffs home

illegally and improperly ente¡ed without consent, a valid sdarrant,

and

probable

cause, privilege or consent, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in thc Fourth, Fifth
and l.-ourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United S1¿tes'

?95, As a result of the aforesaid

conduct by the defendants, plaintiffs home was

entered iliegally at a time not pres*ibed in the'reâffant, in violation of his constitutional rights as

set forth i¡r the F'ourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States,

299. Às a result of the

aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN

SCHOOLCRAFT was not providecl a copy of said warrânt upon his request, in violation of his
constitutional rights as set forth

to

the

defendants, plaintiffs home

ånd

in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments

Constitution of the lJnited States.

300. As a result of the
possessions were

aforesaid conduct

by

illegally and improperly searched without any warrart, probable

cause.

privilege ûr c.onsent, in vioiation of his constitutional rights as $et forth in the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Ercqrrr..cl,ArM rqR RELTEn
rNvçLqNTÁ"Rï CONFINEMENLUNDER 42 U.S,C.

301,

S 1983

Plaintiff rspeats, reite¡ates and realleges each and every allegation containecl in

pâragraphs numbered '01" through '0300"

with the same force and sffect as if fully set forth

herein.

302.

Defendants ISAKOV and AI,DANA-BERMER, unlawfully and involuntarily

conlined plaintiff to JHMC for six (6) days withouf plainti{Îs permission, consent or any
basis for doing so, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth

latful

in the Foutth, Fifth

and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,

303,

Furthcr, defendants ISAKOV and ALDANA-tsERNIER violated plaintitïs rights

under the New York State Mental l-lygiene law $ 9.39(a) when they failed to perform the proper
and necessary tests to determine that

plaintiffwas eit¡er l) a o'substantialrisk ol'physicaiharm to

himself as manifssted by threats or atternpts at suicide or other conduct demonstrating that he is
dangerous to

himself' or 2) "a substantial risk olphysical harm to othsr persons

as manifested

by

homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious
physicalhârm,"

304, As a result of the afbresaid

conduct by defendants, plaintifi wtrs uniawfully

detained and involuntarily conflrned to hospital treatment without any justification, in violation

of

his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the lJnited States.

305.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintifíwas deprived of

his substanlivc and procedurai due process rights, as set forth in the Fifth and

Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,

306,

As a result of the ,foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived of

his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights,

wa.s pubiicly embarrassed and

humiiiated, was caused to suffcr severe emotional distress, was involuntariiy confincd to hospitaì

heatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.

ilINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

{IQ,NSPIR4CY TO VIü-LÅTA PL¿IINT${:S

307,
paragraphs

"l

308.

CffIL

R,IGHTS trNDEß,42 U.S.C. ö I }83

Plaintiff rçpeats, reiterates and realleges eacir and every allegation contained in
r(306" as
if the sâme ìffere more fully set forJh at length herein
" through

Defendants conspired and acted

in concert to do whatevsr was necessary, lawful

or not, t0 cause the arrest, imprisonment, and involuntary confinemsnt of plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT',

309,

Throughout the period ofthe oonspiracy, the defendants pursued their objectives

with actual maiice toward piaintiff, with utter and deliberate indifference to and disregard for

plaintiffs rights under the Constitution and laws of the Llnited States. without probable

or

reasonabie oause to beliçve plaintiffcommitted any crime or any other la.wfuibasis fo¡ doing so,

310,

Pursuant

to the conspiracy, the conspirators, ahd their employees, âgents ancl

servants, intentionally, recklessly, negiigently, and,/or with complefe indifference to the rights of

plaintiff ADzuAN SCI{OOLCR¡\FT: (a) manufactured faise evidence; (b) unlawfllly
plaintiff s home; (c) illegally seized piaintiff s property; (d) verbally and physically

entered

threalenecl

plaintiff in an atternpt to silence him; (e) st¿lked anci menaced plaintiff af his home; and (b)
pressured, bribed, coerced and induced individuals

to havê plaintiff involuntarily confined

Io

hospital treatrnent without his consent or any other laivful basis for doing so.

311.

As a rêsult of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRiAN SCHOOLCRAÏll was deprived of

his liberry, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embarrassecl

and

humíliatsd, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntariiy confined to hospital
treatment and was forced to incur substantial expçnses.

TENTI{ CLåIM FOR RELIE:F'
vtol,A'rroN oF S,{/BSTANTM AND PROqEDUR{L,DUE

P_ROCASS IJNDER

u.s,c. $ 1983

3I2.

l?

Ptaintiff repeats, rciterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" tluough "311" with the same force and effect

as

if fully set forth

herein.

313,

Despite the fact that defendants ISACOV 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'

314,

Defendants ISACOV and.ALDANA-BERNIER never made any determination

as is required by the Constitution

*

*

that that plaintiff was a danger to himself or anyone else.

315. Further, any such

determination

by

defendants ISACOV and ALDANA-

BERNIER that that plaintiff wâs å danger. to himself or ânyone else was not made with any
ohjective criteria or any reasonable degreè ofaccuracy,

316.

Defendants IS,A"COV and ALÞAÌ{A-BERNIER, unlawfuliy and invoiuntariiy

confined plaíntiff to JHMC: for six (6) days without plaintiff s permission, oonsent or âny iawfi.rl
basis for doing so, r¡'ithout notice and an opportunity to be heard, and without any oppcrtunity to

confronl adverse witnesses or present evidence on his own behalfl

in violation of his

constitutional rights as set fcrrth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendme¡rts to the Constitution of
the United States,

317,

As a result of the afore,said conduct by the defendants, piaintiff was deprived of

his subst¿ntive and procedural due process rights, as set forth ln the Fifrh and

Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
3

i

L

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADzuÁN SCHOOLCR.A.FT was deprived of

his liberry, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embanassed

ancl

humiliated, was caused to suffer severë emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to hospital
treatment and was fbrced to incur substantial expensÇs.

319.

As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, pìaintiff was deprived of his

liberty and involuntarily confined for six (6) days in the psychiafric ward of JHMC in violation

of his substantive and procedural due plucess rights as set forth in the Fifth and

Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constihrtion of the'finited States.

rwELFrH

C.LAIM FÇ-ß

MUNICIPêL ITTA,EILITY UND,ER

320.

FüLtEl
42 U.S.ç. S 1e83

Plaintiff repeats, roiteratos and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" through "3l9" with the sarnc force and effect as if fully

set forth

herein,

321.

Defendants, collectively ancl individually, while acting under color

of

state iaw,

engaged in conduct that constituted a custom! usage, practice. procedure or ruie of the respective

municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.

322.

The aforementioned customs, policies, usâges, practices, procedures a¡d rules of

the Cify of New York and the New York City Poiice Department inolucied, but were not limited
tû:
t,

11

Creating a quotas system for NYPD subordinate ofJicers requiring the officers
to issue a oertain number of summonses per montir and year regardless of
probable câuse;

Creating a policy of a.warding incentives to oflcers wiro meet or exceed the
required number of summonses to be issued according to NYPD's quota;

lil

Creating a policy of punishing ofïicers who fail to meet the required number
of sumrnonses established by NYPD's quota;

lv

Intimidating and threatening police offisers with retaliation when said police

officers challenge unlawful NYPD quota policies;
v

Intimidating and tl¡reatening police officers with relaliation when said police
officers attempt to disclose instances of NYPD comlption ancl police
misconduct, f}aud ¿nd breaches of the public trust;

v1

Retaiiating against police officers with suspensions and disciplinary hearings
who disclose or âfiempt to disclose NYPD com:ption and police misconduct;

vlt.

Displaying

a

deliberatc indi,fference

to

disciplining supervisors,

clespite

allegations of illegal and/or unconstitutional ct¡nduct; and

vtll

Lntentionally 'oleaking" officers IAB conrplaints - whjch IAB is duty bound to
keep confidsntial * for purposes of alerting NYPD personnel and other
supervisory offioers, whom are the subject of the complaints, in an ongoing
effort to discourage future IAB complaints and/or silence those in existence,

323,

The existence of the aforesaid unconstitutional customs and policies may be

infened from repeated occunences of simila¡' wrongful conduct as has been recently publicized
in the matters Poiice Officer's Adhyl Polanco and lìrank Pallestro.

324,

The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures ancl rules of the

City ol'New York ancl the New Yr:rk City Police Departmenl were the moving force behind the
consttutionai violations suffered by plaintiffas alleged herein.

325.

Additionaliy, the NYPD's deliberate indifference to proper training, supervising

and/or disciplining

of policy making officials such as defendants MARINO, NEI,SON and

MAURIELLO constituted expiioit and/or tacit approval of their illegal and unsonstitutional
conduct,

.

326.

Further, the NYPD's deliberate indifference to proper raining and supen'ision

of

the lnternal Affairs Bureau regarding maintaining the confidentiality of compiainants constitutes

implicit and/or tacit approval of illegal and unconstitutional conduct thereby discouraging
disclosure

of illegal ærd unconstitutional

acts

Amendments to the United States Constitution

in violation of the Fourth

the

and Fourteenth

327,

As a result of the foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedwes

and

rules of the City of New York and tire New York City Policp Deparlment, plaintiff ADRIAI.J

SCHOOLCRAFT was subjected to unlaufill and excessive force resulting in permanent and
disabling inluries,

328.

Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law,

were directly and actively involved in violating

329"
acquiescecl

plaintiff

s

constitutíonal rights,

Defsndants, collectively and individually, while acting unrler color of state law,

in a pattem of unconstitutional conduct by subordinate police officers, and were

direclly responsible lar the vjolotion of plainriff ADRIAN SCHOOTCRAFT's constitulional
riglrts,

330,

The acts cornplained were a direct and proximate result of the usages, practices,

procedures and rules of the City of New York and the New Yorlç City Police Department, which
constituted deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being and constitutional rights of plaintiff.

331.

The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of the

City of New York and ûe New York

Cþ

Police Department were the direct and proximate

cause of the constitutional violations suff'ered by

i,
ii.
iii,

plaintiff

as alieged herein.

Not to be deprived of liberty without due process of iaw;
To be fiee from sejzurs and arrest not based upon probable cause;
Not to have excessive force imposed upon him;

iv. Not to have summary punishment imposed upon him;
v.
vi,

T'o receive equal protection under the

law; and

Not to be deprived of his right to free speech.

PENDANT STATp CL¡.IMS

332,

Plaintiff repeâts, reiterates zurd realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs nurnbered

"1" tluough "331" wíth the

same forcc and etïect as

if fully set llodh

herein.

333" On or about .lanu*ry 27,2010, and within (90) days afler the claim herei¡r
aocrued, the

plaintiff duly sewed upon, presented to and filed with defendant 'fHE Cj.TY

NE W YORK, a Notice

OF

of Claim setting forth ail faots and infonnation required und.er the

General Municipal l.,aw $ 50 (e).

334,

I)efendant THE CITY

tF

NEW YORK has wholly negiecte<J or refused to make

an adjustment or payment thereof and more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since

the

presentation of such ciairn as af'oresaid,

335,

Upon information and beliel defendant THË CITY OF NEW YORK has not yet

demancled a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law $ 50-h,

336.

This action was commenced within one (1) year and ninety (90) days after the

cause of action herein aocrued.

337.

Piaintiff has complied with all conditions precedenf to maintaining the instant

338,

This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in C.P.L.R,

action,
$

r602,

FIRST

339,

çLAIM FOR RELIET

UNDER N.Y. ÇIATE I.,AYY:.ASSAULT

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered '*1" through "338" with the same force and effect as
herein,

if

fuliy set forth

340.

Defendants' aforementioned aclions placed plaintifi in apprehension of imminent

h¿rmful and oflfensive bodily contact,

341.

As a result of def'enda.nts' conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and nrental

anguish, together with shock, fiight, apprehension, embarrassment. and humÌliation.

SECONT, C,LAIM F,QR RELI,-E,F UNDER N.Y"..STATE LAI/I¡: BATTERY

342.

Plaintiff repeats, reiTerates and realleges each and every allegation containcd in

paragraphs numbered

"1" through "341" with the

same force and effect as

if fully

set forth

herein.

343.

Defendant police ofücers touched plaintiffin a harmful and offensive mannet,

344,

Defendant police officers did so without privilege or consenl liom plaintiff,

345,

As a result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and mental

anguish, togcther with shock, fright, a¡:prehension, embarrassmeut and humiliation,

TIII4Þ CL.aIM FOR RELIEF IJNÞER IìÌ.Y'.STATE LA\ry: F,a'LSE.ARBEST

346, Piaintiff repeats,
paragraphs numbered

reiterates and realleges each and every ailegation contained in

"1" through "345" with the sarne force and effect as if fully

set fbrlh

herein,

347.

Defêndants arrested plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT

in the absence

of

probable cause and without a warrant,

348. As a result of the aforesaid

conducl

by

defendants, plaintifl ADRIAN

SCHOOLCRAFT was subjeoted to an illegal, improper arrd faise anest by the defendants

and

taken into custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incaroerated and by

tho defendants, The aforesaid actions by the defendants constituted a deprivation of
plaintiff s rights.

the

349,

of

As a result of the fbregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFTI was deprived

his liberty, was denied fundamenta.l rights, was publicly embarrassed and humiiiated, was caused

to suffe¡ severe emotional disüess, was involuntarily confined to hospital teatment, was forced
to incur substantial expenses and had his personal and professional reputation destroyed,

FOUF.TH 9LAIM FOR RELIEF UNÐER N.Y, STATE LAÏV:
FALS,E IMPR]SONMENT

350.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges cach and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" through'0349" with the

same f'orce and effect as

if fully set forlh

herein,

351, As a rcsult of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
imprisoned. his liberty was restricted

was falsely

fo¡ an oxtended period of lime, was put in fear fot

his

safety, was humiliated and subjected.to handcufüng, and other physical restrai¡rts,

352,

Plaintiff was conscious of said confinement and did not cotrsdnt to same,

353,

The confinement of plaintiff was without probable cause and wa.\ not otherwise

prívileged,

354.

As a result of the aforemenlioned conduct, plaintiff has suffercd physical

and

mental injury, [ogelher with embaûassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom.

355,

Âs a result of the fciregoi.ng, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOI,CRAFT was deprived

of

his liberty, was denjed fundamental rights, wæ publicly ernbarrassed and humiliated, was caused

to suffer severe emotional distres's, was involuntarily confined to hospitai treatment, was forced
to incur substantial expenses a¡d had his personal and professional reputation desüoyed.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR $ELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAI#: INTENTIONAL
ullrl,rçrroN or EM9'upNAL DrsTRüss

356,

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

pa¡agraphs uumbered

"l" through "355" with the same force and effect as if fully set forth

herein,

357.

The aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous, and exceeded all

reasonable bor.urds of decenc.y.

358.

The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting within

the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NE\V YORK,

359. llhe aforementioned conduct was com¡nitted by defendants while acting in
filrtherance of their employment by <iefendant THË CITY OF NE\A/ YORK,

360,

The aforementioned conduct wæ committed by defendants while acting within

the scope of their employmenf by defendant JAMAICA HOSPITAL CENTER.

361,

l"he aforementioned conduct was cotnmiCed by defendants whíie acting in

furtherance of their employment by defendant JAMAICA HOSPiTAL CENTË:R,

362,

Thc aforementioned conduct was intentional and donc lor the sole purpose of'

causing severe emotional distress to plaintiff,

363,

As a result of the afbrementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered severe emotional

distress, pirysical and mental injury, together with embarassmsnt, humiliation, shock, tiight and

loss of freedom.

364,

As a result of the foregoing, plaintJllf ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAF1'was deprived of

his liberty, was denied ftlndament¿l rìghts, was pubiicly embanassed and humiliated, was caused

to suffer severe emotional distess, was involuntariiy'confined to hospital treatment, was fbrced
to incur substantial expenses Éìnd had his personaland professional reputation destroyed.

srxTH ÇLAïM rOR RSI,IEF UNDER N.Y, STATE LAr.V_i
NEGLIçENT HIRTNG/TR4TNING/SUIpRVISIO N/RETENT"T,ON
(Defendant Cif¡ of New York)

365,

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realieges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" through

'u364"

with the same force and eff'ect as if fuliy set forth

herein.

Negligent Retention and $upervision of Defendant Marino

366,

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK wâs on notice that defenda¡t Ma¡ino had a

volatile, explosive temperament and was wholly unñt for duty as Assistant Chjef of Patrol
Borough Brooklyn North charged with the responsibility of overseeing all the precincts in Kings
County,

367.

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 ofpxcessive force and physical aitercations,

368,

Additional evidence of the CITY's negiigence is apparent fiom even a cllrsory

review of defendant MARINO's record since the inception of his career in the NYPD, which is
repiete with history o'forcç complaints,"

369.

Illustralive of defendant MAzuNO's violent tendency was an incident in which he

physically assaulted the paton of a restaurant in Bensonhurst for uttering profanities directed at
the NYPD,

3?t.

Fu¡the¡ evidence óf his unfitness for his NYPD assignment should have been

apparenl when he threatened physical violence and removal of sick/vacation days from an officer

who refused to discuss his "activíty" with MARINO,

371,

Upon information and belie{ MARIÑO's vicious and violent propensity eaÍred

hìm the nickname "ELEPI{ANT BALLS."

377.

Additionally, defendant \4ARINO also engaged in multiple unrelated acts of

misconduct during his career iryith the IVYPD, which resulted in numerous departmental hearings.

373,
- in sworn

In one such instance, Marino was specifìoally identified by another poiice

deposition testimony

314,

-

as having engaged

of

ftcer

in an illegal and uniau{ul conduct,

Mr:reover, as previously stated, CHIEF I{ARINO was also directiy linked to a

scandal involvìng his possession and use olianabolic sterojds and humzu: gro*'th hormone.

375,

However, CHIitF MARII*O was never disoiplined in any way for hjs involvement

ìn that inciclent despite the fact that five other implicaled officers were all placed on modified
cluty and forced to hancl ove¡ their guns ancì badges.

'376.

Finally, as previously

state<l,

CHIEF MARINO was found to be

clirectly

responsible for viglating Nerv York State L,abor Law in 2006 by implementing an unlawful quota

poiicy in the T5th.Precinct.

377.

Following that frnding, the CITY CIF NEW YCIRK not only failed to cliscipline

him but in fact promoted him from the commanding offrcer of the 75h Precinct 1o Assistant
Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North,

378. As a result of the foregoing acts of unlawful conduct and/or grossly irnproper
behavior by defendant MARINO. defendant City of New York knew, or shoulcl have lffiown, that
dÐllendanl MAIì.INO was

wholiy unfit for any of position of command, much less Assistant

Borough Chief,

379,

Nonvithstanding defendant Marino's history of unlawful and improper conduct,

however, defendant

CII'Y OF NEW YORK failed to take proper discipiinary action

against

CHIEF MARINO, and failed to ôtherwise modify or limit defendant Marino's responsibilities or

position of command,

380. l'r¡ the contrary, the NYPD actually rewarcled defendant Marino for
misconduct by promoting him to Assisfant Borough Chief Brooklyn North
81.st Precinct

*

lead.ing directly to the events which took place on October

381.

3

-

his

which includes the

1, 2009.

f)efendants' negiigent retention and supewision of defbndalt Ma¡ino was the

direct and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by piaintiff on October 31, 2009

and

thereafier.

382,

As a resuit of the fbregoing negligent acts and omissions by defendant CITY OF

NIiW YO.RK, plaintifTADzuAN SCHOOLCIRAFT has suffered physical and mental injury, pain
and trauma, together with embanassnent, humiliation shock, fright, and loss of fieodom,

383.
supervisecl

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK se)ected, hired, trained, retained, assigned and

all members of said its Police Deparfment, including the defendants individually

named above,

384,

Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negiigent and ca¡eless when

it

selected,

hired, hained, retained, assigrred, and supervised all members of its Police Department including
the defendants inclividually named above.

385,

Dcfendant CITY OF NtìW YORK. was negligent and careless when it repeatcdly

failed to act a¡rd/or discipline supervisory personnel in the face of obvious evidence of comlption
and misconduct.

Negligence in Failing to Keep IAB Compl¡ints Confidential

386,

Defendant CITY OF NES/ YORK was further negligent and careless when it

repeatedly aJlowed allegedly confidential IAB complaints regarding supervisory personnel to be
o'leaked" to thb very same
officíais of who were the subjects of the complain.ts,

387.

Additionally defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on nc¡1jce that IAB was

failing to keep cornplaints of comrption and illegality confidential due to a similar "leak" in the
42"d Precinct regarding aìlegations

of illegality which occuned in September, 2009 involving

P,O. Franh Pallestro.

3S8.

Further defendant CITY OF NE\¡/ YORK was on notice that IAB was failing to

keep complaints

of corruption and illegality confidential due to a similar "lsâk" in tire 42nd

Precinct regarding allegations of illegality involving P.O, Adhyl Polanco,

sqvENTH CLArM rOR RELTAT UNpË&ll,.y. ç:IATELLAW
MEDICÀL MALTRACTICE

389.

Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs numbered

"1" tkough "388u with the

same force and effcct as

if fully set forJh

herein,

390,

ThatJHMC, its agents, ofticials, doctors, nurses, physician's assistants,.servants,

enployees, andlor independent Çontractors, including, but not limited to, DR, ISAK ISAKOV,
an<i

DR. I.II.,IAN ALDANA-BERNIER, jointly and severally, and individually, clcparted from

good and accepted standards of medical careo and were negligent and careless in the seryice
rendered for and on behalf of

plaintiff ADzuAN SCHOOLCRAFT, in failing to timely

diagnose

and render propff treatment to plaintif{ in faiiing to recognize that he was not emotionally
disturbed and in need

of involuntarT confinement; in. improperly and riegligently

documenting

plaintiff's medical conditlons on his chafi on the basis of unsubstantiated hearsay; !n failing to
properly interpret the diagnostic tests that were performed; in failing to call for or
necessary additional diagnostic tests and studies;

consulls; in failing to hire

in failing to properly

requ.est

and timeiy obtain

â competent a¡d efficient staff; in negligently hiring,

retaining,

supervising and oont¡olling staff, doctors, nurses and other personnel; in forming a diagnosis

solely based on non-medical profbssionals and/or staffls non expert and unprofessional lay
opinion.

391,

That the defendants herein,

assístants, servants and employees were

their

agents, officÍals, doctors, nurses, physician's

ftrther negligent and careless and violated

medical practices, medical customs and rnedical standards

in that

defendants,

accepted

jointiy

and/or

severally, faiJed to have an adequate, oompetent and/or sufficient nursing staff and/o¡ other
personnel to properly ciiagnose plaintifl which would have ensured his prompt and immediate
release rmder the foreseeable circumstances; failed

employed and/or affiliated physicians; failed

to

to have proper
conform

supen

ision of hospital-

to the Joint Commission

of

Accreditation of llospitals insofar as the making and/or keeping of hospítal records; in failed to
promuigate andior enfo¡ce rules, regulations and guidelines as to proper psychiatric care; and
failed to timely ancl/or properly carry out orders,

392,

That as a resuit of the negiigence and carclessness of the defendants herein,

plaintifL was cansed to and clid nrstain the severe consequence of being involuntariiy confined
against his

will for six days, when

there was no medical or professional basis to do so.

El Cl HTH-CL,A.IM FOII RIILI &F U"lYDl)R \[."Y,_$ T¿, TIt l.¿\ TY¡
NEGLIGENT IITRII.'{G/TRAINING/SU pERVISICIN/nE:t'üÌ.{Tt ON
(DefendantJHMC)

393.

Plaintiff repeats, rsiterates ancl realleges eacir and every aliegation contained in

paraggaphs numbered

"1" through "392" with the

same force and effect as

if fully

set forth

herein.

394.

Defendant JHMC seiected, hired, trained, retained, assigned and supenised all

members of its staff, inciuding the defendants individualiy named above.

395, . Defendant JHMC was negligent and careless when

it selected, hired,

trained,

retained, assigned, and supervised all nembers

of its staff inciuding the defendants individualiy

named above,

396. Due to the negligence of tlre defendants
physical and menlal iryury, pain and trauma, together

as set forth ahove, plaintiff suffþred

with

embarrassment, humiiiation shock,

fright, and ioss of freedom,

397, By reason of the

aforesaid conduct

by

defendants,

plaintiff ADRIAN

SCI{OOLCRAFT requests the following relief:

A.

Compensatory damages

in the amount of

twenty ñve rnillion

dollars

($25,000,000);

B,

Punitive damages in the amount of twen6, five million dollars ($25,000,000,00)l

C.

An award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 42 IJ,S.C, $ 1988,

as

well

as

co.sts and disbursements; and

D,

Any further relief

as the

Court may find just and proper.

WHEREFORE. plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCR a\FT demands judgment in the sum of

twenty five million dollars ($25,000,000,00) in compensatory damages. twent.y five million
($25,000,000,00)

in punitive

damages, plus attomey's fees, costs, and ctisbursenrents

of this

action.

Dated:Neu, York. New York
September 75,2017

BY

/S

JON L. I'itzuNSBERG (JN21 33)
Aftorncy fbr Plaintifï
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, New York 10007
(212) 79t-s396
[e-mail]

BY

/s-

aotipñ& rrfcH-l"r,p

Gerald Cohen (GC0414)
Joshua Fitch (JF2813)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, New York 10007
(212) 374-9tIs
gcohen@cohenfìtch. com
ì

fitch@co

h

eufitch, com

INDEX

NO.

IO

YÞAR

CV 6005

2OI2

LT.IITED STATES DISTRICT CÛURT
SOUTI{ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
Plaintiff,
-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et aI.
Ðefendants

SECOND AMßNDED COMPLAINT

COHEN & FITCH LLP
Attorneyþr Plainttff
OJfice and Po,rt Office Address, Telephone
233 Broadway - Suite 1800
New York, New York 10279
(212) 31+-9115

JON L. NORTNSBERG, ESQ.

Attorneyfor PIaíntiff
Office and Post Offtce Address, Telephone
225 Broadway - Suite 2700

New York, New Yotk 10007
(217) 7e1-5396

Sigrrature (Rule 130-1 ,I a)

Print Narne Beneath
To
Attorney(s) for Þefendants
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted.

Dated

Attorney(s) for
PLEÄSE TAKE NOT]CË

Ë

NOT1CE9FENTRY
thât thö within is a (certified) fiue copy of a
.duly entered in tbe office of the clerk of thç within named court on

tr

NOTICE OF SETTI,EME].IT
that an order
wili be presented for settlement to thÊ HON
within n¿msd Court, at
20

on
Dated,

20

of which the within is a tue copy
one of tlre.iudges of the
at

'

Yours, etc,