Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 308

DECLARATION of NATHANIEL B. SMITH in Support re: 305 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit REDACTED, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit REDACTED, # 20 Exhibit)(Smith, Nathaniel)

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
EXHIBIT 8

Received:

01/12/2010

12:25

Jan 12 2010 12:26pm
81 !CD OFFICE ~" .,D

7185742"·'C,4

BROWN &

PAGE

11/12

GFlOPPER. LLP

A1"'rORNEYS AT LAW

275 SEVE:NTI-I oWr:NUt:.

~5TH

YO~K.

·rEL.. 12121

3613-~600

r-A>o:.

JOSHUA GROPPER
JAMES A. BROWN

FLOOR

N.Y. 10001

NEW

IZIZl ~66;6~50

March 11, 2009

FEDE:.RAL EXPRESS

Steven Mauriello
Dept:.ty Inspector
CorMtanding Officer, 8Pt Precinct
30 Ralpr. Avenue
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11221
Dear Deputy Inspector Mauriello:
We are the attorneys for Police Officer Adrian Schoolcr.aft who
is assigned to your. Command .. We have been advised that Officer
Schoolcraft recently received an annual performance evaluation with
an overall rating of "2.5" which is below the desirable standard.
We have been asked by our cli~nt to assist him with his pending
appeal pursuant to Patrol Guide Procedure No. 205-58.
We are aware that Officer Schoolcraft appeared before you, and
other superior officers, on February 25th at which time his annual
evaluation was discussed. It is our understanding that a final
decision from Conunand has not yet bee.n rendered.
Please know that a review of Officer Schoolcraft's annual
evaluation reveals ratings which do not support his overall 2.5
rating. While we recognize that various "performance areas• and
"behavioral dimensions" may be weighted differently, the overall
rating was mistakenly calculated. For example, our client's average
for "performance areas" equals 3.75 (and contains no rating of less
than 3). For "behavior dirnensionsu, our client's average equals
3.25 (and contains only two ratings of less than 3). In addition,
the balance of the evaluation includes the following praise:
P.O.
Schoolcr.aft
shows
good
community
interaction by eliciting information from
witnesses and victims. He also mediates
problems between disputing individuals and
provides
counseling
when
families
have
conflicts.

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT
"17

NYC00007R4fi

Received:

Bl/12/2010

12:25

7185742?'?64

Dep. Inspector Mauriello

Jan 12 2010 12:26PID

81 ICO OFFICE

- 2 -

~VPD

PAGE

12/12

March 11, 2009

P .0. Schoolcraft is able to complete arrest
forms accurately and completely is able to
fingerprint, photograph and process all arrest
related paperwork.
Clea1:ly,
Officer Schoolcraft's overall evaluation fails to
correspond to his evident accomplishments as reflected in hls
strong ratings and the above praise.

I
I

I
I

I

i

We are concerned that our client's negative evaluation is
based not on the factors set forth in Patrol Guide 205-48, but
rather on his alleged lack"of" "activity" related to his number of
arrests and summons issued. Yet, Patr:ol Guide 205-48 makes no
reference to "activity" levels. Furthermore, we are unaware of any
Patrol Guide provision whic~ defines how much ~activity" is
required to achieve a satisfactory evaluation. In other words, no
stated nt~eric goals should be imposed on any ratee. At any rate,
we are confident that Officer Schoolcraft's level of "activityH is
comparable to most other police officers (and you will nate he
achieved a "4" in most of the specified performance areas related
to arrests and the issuance of. sununons).
We urge you to weigh the above considerations before issuing
a decision related to our client's evaluation. Specifically, we ask
you to again consider Officer School:.raft' s individual ratings
together with his CPI record, Department recognition, sick record,
commendation letters, CCRB records and other factors expressly
referenced in Patrol Guide 205-48. It remains Officer Schoolcraft's
preference not to invoke any appeal rights to the Borough Command.
Please know that any opportunity for our client to advance his
career within the Department, or in some other jurisdictiqn, is
significantly hindered by this latest annual evaluation. We hope
and trust this matter can be adjusted based on a fresh review of
this matter so that the appeal process may now be concluded.
We look forward to hearing from you or your designee.

cc: Adrian Schoolcraft

NYC:ItlOO?.R4 7