Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
350
DECLARATION of Paul F. Callan in Support re: 334 MOTION to Dismiss and for other relief.. Document filed by Lillian Aldana-Bernier. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Summons and Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Dr. Aldana-Bernier Answer to Second Amended Summons and Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Judge Sweet Opinion and Order dated 1/16/15, # 4 Exhibit Third Amended Summons and Complaint)(Callan, Paul)
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 64
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL
MARINO, Tax Id. 873220, Individually and in his Official Capacity,
ASSISTANT CHIEF PATROL BOROUGH BROOKLYN NORTH
GERALD NELSON, Tax Id. 912370, Individually and in his Official
Capacity, DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO, Tax Id.
895117, Individually and in his Official Capacity, CAPTAIN
THEODORE LAUTERBORN, Tax Id. 897840, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT WILLIAM GOUGH, Tax Id.
919124, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SGT.
FREDERICK SAWYER, Shield No. 2576, Individually and in his
Official Capacity, SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN, Shield No. 2483,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT
CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART, Tax Id. 915354, Individually and in
his Official Capacity, LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, Tax
Id. 885374, Individually and in his Official Capacity, SERGEANT
SHANTEL JAMES, Shield No. 3004, Individually and in her Official
Capacity, , CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, Tax Id. 899922,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, and P.O.’s “JOHN DOE”
#1-50, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe
being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown),
(collectively referred to as “NYPD defendants”), FDNY
LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON, individually and in her official
capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department,
JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ISAK ISAKOV,
Individually and in his Official Capacity, DR. LILIAN ALDANABERNIER, Individually and in her Official Capacity and JAMAICA
HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEE’S “JOHN DOE” # 150, Individually and in their Official Capacity (the name John Doe
being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown),
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THIRD
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
10 CV 6005
JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
ECF CASE
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 64
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT by his attorneys, complaining of the defendants,
respectfully allege as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Plaintiff brings this action for compensatory damages, punitive damages and
attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for violations of his civil
rights, as said rights are secured by said statutes and the Constitutions of the State of New York
and the United States.
2.
This action seeks redress for a coordinated and concentrated effort by high ranking
officials within the New York City Police Department (hereinafter “NYPD”) to silence,
intimidate, threaten and retaliate against plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, for his
documentation and disclosure of corruption with the NYPD. Specifically, that the NYPD had
established an illegal quota policy for the issuance of summonses and arrests and that defendants
were falsifying and instructing police officers to suborn perjury on police reports in order to
distort COMPSTAT statistics. In order to prevent disclosure of these illegal and unconstitutional
acts, which would have revealed rampant NYPD corruption, defendants unlawfully entered
plaintiff’s home, had him forcibly removed in handcuffs, seized his personal effects, including
evidence he had gathered documenting NYPD corruption and had him admitted to Jamaica
Hospital Center against his will, under false and perjurious information that plaintiff was
“emotionally disturbed.” Thereafter, defendant officers conspired with Jamaica Hospital Center
personnel to have plaintiff involuntarily committed in its psychiatric ward for six (6) days, all in
an effort to tarnish plaintiff’s reputation and discredit his allegations should he succeed in
disclosing evidence of widespread corruption within the NYPD.
2
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 64
JURISDICTION
3.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is
founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
VENUE
4.
Venue is properly laid in the Southern District of New York under U.S.C. §
1391(c), in that the defendant City of New York is a municipal corporation that resides in the
Southern District of New York. .
JURY DEMAND
5.
Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
PARTIES
6.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT is a male, a citizen of the United
States, and at all relevant times a resident of the City and State of New York.
7.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was and is a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
8.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK maintains the New York City Police
Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform
all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State
Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned
municipal corporation, City of New York.
3
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 64
9.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendants
DEPUTY CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, ASST. CHIEF GERALD NELSON, DEPUTY
INSPECTOR
STEVEN
MAURIELLO,
CAPTAIN
THEODORE
LAUTERBORN,
LIEUTENANT TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, SERGEANT SHANTEL JAMES, LIEUTENANT
WILLIAM GOUGH, SERGEANT FREDERICK SAWYER, SERGEANT KURT DUNCAN,
LIEUTENANT CHRISTOPHER BROSCHART, CAPTAIN TIMOTHY TRAINER, and
P.O.’s “JOHN DOE” #1-50 were duly sworn police officers of said department and were acting
under the supervision of said department and according to their official duties.
10.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the NYPD defendants, either
personally or through their employees, were acting under color of state law and/or in
compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, usages and/or practices
of the State or City of New York.
11.
Each and all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alleged herein were done
by said defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by defendant THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.
12.
Each and all of the acts of the NYPD defendants alleged herein were done
by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY
OF NEW YORK.
13.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendant
LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON was a duly sworn lieutenant with the New York City Fire
4
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 64
Department (“FDNY”) and was acting under the supervision of said department and according
to her official duties.
14.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the FDNY defendant, was acting
under color of state law and/or in compliance with the official rules, regulations, laws,
statutes, customs, usages and/or practices of the State or City of New York.
15.
Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defendant alleged herein were done by
said defendant while acting within the scope of her employment by defendant THE CITY OF
NEW YORK.
16.
Each and all of the acts of the FDNY defendant alleged herein were done by
said defendant while acting in furtherance of her employment by defendant THE CITY OF
NEW YORK.
17.
Defendant the JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (hereinafter
“JHMC”) is a privately owned hospital located at 8900 Van Wyck Expressway, Jamaica, New
York, 11418 and performs all functions of a hospital.
18.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned the defendant, JHMC, was a domestic
corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York.
19.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant JHMC owned, operated,
managed and controlled a certain hospital for the treatment of the sick and ailing in the
County of Queens, State of New York, and as such held itself out as duly qualified to render
proper and adequate hospital service for the treatment of the sick and ailing in the County of
5
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 64
Queens, State of New York, and as such held itself out as duly qualified to render proper and
adequate hospital, medical and surgical services to members of the general public, including
plaintiff.
20.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. ISAK ISAKOV, was
a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York, and as such held
himself out as duly qualified to render proper and adequate medical services to members of the
general public, including plaintiff.
21.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. ISAK ISAKOV was
the attending physician of the Psychiatric Department of JHMC, and was an employee,
agent, servant and/or independent contractor retained by JHMC to render medical services,
care and treatment patients seeking medical care at JHMC.
22.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. LILIAN ALDANA-
BERNIER, was a physician duly licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York, and
as such, held herself out as duly qualified to render proper and adequate medical services to
members of the general public, including plaintiff.
23.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, defendant DR. LILIAN ALDANA-
BERNIER was the admitting physician of the Psychiatric Department of JHMC, and was
an employee, agent, servant and/or independent contractor retained by JHMC to render
medical services, care and treatment patients seeking medical care at JHMC.
24.
That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the defendants JHMC EMPLOYEE’S
“JOHN DOE” # 1-50 were working for and were acting under the supervision of JHMC
6
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 64
according to their official duties.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Exemplary Career In the U.S. Navy and NYPD
25.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT is a New York City Police Officer and
has been employed by the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) since July, 2002.
26.
Prior to the events set forth below, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
a decorated New York City police officer and United States Navy veteran.
27.
From 1993 to 1997, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT served honorably in
the United States Navy.
28.
During this time, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT received several
commendations, including the “National Defense Service Medal” and the “First Good Conduct
Medal.”
29.
After four years of distinguished service, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
received an honorable discharge from the United States Navy on July 22, 1997.
30.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, decided to join the New York City Police
Department in July 2002.
31.
st
About a year after joining the NYPD, plaintiff began working at the 81
Precinct, where he remained until October 31, 2009.
32.
In total, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT worked for six years at the 81st
33.
During this time, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was a patrol officer at the
Precinct.
81st Precinct.
34.
Plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was often sought out by other police
7
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 64
officers for his knowledge, experience and sound judgment in handling difficult work situations.
35.
In his seven year career with the NYPD, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
had an exemplary record and in fact received multiple commendations for his work as a
police officer.
36.
For example, On October 28, 2006, plaintiff received a “Meritorious Police
Duty Medal” for his “outstanding performance” as a police officer.
37.
Similarly, on June 4, 2008, plaintiff received an award from the NYPD for
his “dedication to the New York City Police Department and to the City of New York.”
Plaintiff Witnesses Enforcement of an Illegal Quota Policy for Summonses and Arrests
38.
During his time at the 81st precinct, plaintiff began to observe a pattern
and practice of supervisors enforcing a de facto quota policy requiring police officers to
issue a certain number summons and arrests per month.
39.
Additionally, plaintiff observed that personal performance evaluations were
based on adherence to this quota for summons and arrests, and officers failing to meet the
required amount were subject to work related consequences, such as loss of overtime, tour
changes and denial of vacation days.
40.
Soon after DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO’s assignment to
the 81st precinct, plaintiff and his fellow police officers started to receive explicit threats of tour
transfers, undesirable assignments, poor performance evaluations and other adverse consequences
for failure to meet their monthly arrest and summons quotas.
41.
These admonishments to adhere to monthly quotas were repeatedly
emphasized by the defendant officers at the daily roll calls in the 81st precinct throughout
plaintiff’s employment.
42.
For example, on December 8, 2008, Defendant MAURIELLO berated his
8
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 64
officers for not writing enough summonses per month: “I SEE EIGHT FUCKING
SUMMONSES FOR A 20 DAY PERIOD OR A MONTH. IF YOU MESS UP, HOW THE
HELL DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY YOU?”
43.
Defendant MAURIELLO repeatedly drove home this message, explicitly
threatening to move officers out of their platoons if they did not make their numbers. For
example, on October 28, 2008, MAURIELLO shouted out to his officers: “IF YOU DON’T
WORK, AND I GET THE SAME NAMES BACK AGAIN, I’M MOVING YOU.
YOU’RE
GOING TO GO TO ANOTHER PLATOON!”
44.
Defendants’ illegal quota policy was enforced not just by Defendant
MAURIELLO, but by other high-ranking members of the 81st Precinct.
For example, on
January 28, 2009, Sergeant Raymond Stukes stated: “I TOLD YOU GUYS LAST MONTH:
THEY ARE LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS, AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET
MOVED.
THEY CAN MAKE YOUR JOB REAL UNCOMFORTABLE, AND WE ALL
KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.”
45.
On December 8, 2008, another Sergeant made similar threats: “WHEN I
TELL YOU TO GET YOUR ACTIVITY UP, ITS FOR A REASON, BECAUSE THEY ARE
LOOKING TO MOVE PEOPLE, AND HE’S SERIOUS THERE’S PEOPLE IN HERE
THAT MAY NOT BE HERE NEXT MONTH.”
46.
Additionally, on October 18, 2009 another Sergeant made it explicitly clear to
the subordinate officers that “AGAIN, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS.”
Officers Were Being Instructed to Make Arrests and Issue Summonses Without Probable
Cause
47.
In fact, defendants were so obsessed with making their “numbers” that they
literally instructed officers to make arrests when there was no evidence of any criminal activity
9
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 64
whatsoever.
48.
For example, on October 31, 2008, Defendant MAURIELLO ordered his officers to
arrest virtually everybody they came in contact with at 120 Chauncey Street in Brooklyn, with or
without probable cause: “EVERYBODY GOES.
I DON’T CARE.
YOU’RE ON 120
CHAUNCEY AND THEY’RE POPPING CHAMPAGNE? YOKE E’M.
THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
THEY
GOT BANDANNAS
ON,
PUT THEM
ARREST THEM.
EVERYBODY GOES TONIGHT. THEY’RE UNDERAGE? FUCK IT.”
49.
Similar orders were given by a Sergeant on November 23, 2008.
THEY’RE ON A CORNER, MAKE ‘EM MOVE.
“IF
IF THEY DON’T WANT TO MOVE,
LOCK ‘EM UP. DONE DEAL. YOU CAN ALWAYS ARTICULATE [A CHARGE] LATER.”
50.
Thus, police officers at the 81st Precinct were being instructed to arrest and
summons fully innocent people for crimes that never occurred for nothing more than standing on a
street corner in their neighborhoods and then “articulate” or create a charge later.
NYPD Policy Making Officials Were the Driving Force Behind This Quota and Policy
51.
Defendants’ myopic obsession with quotas came straight from the highest
ranking officials in the New York City Police Department.
52.
For example, Chief of Transportation MICHAEL SCAGNELLI, a three star
Chief, was quoted as saying: “HOW MANY SUPERSTARS AND HOW MANY LOSERS DO
WE HAVE, HOW MANY SUMMONSES DOES THE SQUAD WRITE. WE NEED MORE
ACTIVITY, IF YOUR PRODUCTIVITY FALLS BELOW PAR EITHER YOU OR THE C.O.
IS GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER.”
53.
Another high-ranking official at the 81st Precinct, Lieutenant Delafuente,
actually gave specific numbers that must be met by each officer: “[CAPTAIN STARKY]
10
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 11 of 64
WANTS AT LEAST 3 SEATBELTS (SUMMONSES), 1 CELL PHONE (SUMMONS) AND 11
OTHERS (SUMMONSES).”
Plaintiff Refuses to Comply with the NYPD’s Unlawful Quota Policy, Leading to Increased
Pressure and Scrutiny from His Supervisors
54.
Unlike many of his colleagues, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT refused
to issue or to be coerced to issue unwarranted and illegal summonses and arrest innocent people
in the absence of probable cause simply to meet a quota.
55.
As a direct result of this “non-compliance,” in January 2009, plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT began to be scrutinized and increasingly pressured by his
supervisors and commanding officer to increase his “ACTIVITY” (i.e. not writing enough
summons and not making enough arrests), or face possible low performance evaluations and
tour/command reassignment.
56.
Specifically, on January 13, 2009, plaintiff was summoned to a meeting with
MASCOL, who commanded him to increase his “OVERALL ACTIVITY,” or he would be
placed on “PERFORMANCE MONITORING” and be subject to “LOW QUARTERLY
EVALUATIONS.”
57.
Further, when plaintiff requested an explanation of the lieutenant’s definition
of “ACTIVITY,” MASCOL explicitly referenced the need to increase his issuance of
summonses and arrests.
Plaintiff Receives a Poor Evaluation Based On His Low Summons “Activity”
58.
On January 29, 2009, plaintiff did, in fact, receive a poor performance
evaluation as a result of his failure to issue the mandated number of summons and arrests
required by his supervisors and Borough chief.
59.
Specifically, plaintiff received an overall rating of 2.5 out of 5.0, despite the
11
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 12 of 64
fact that the average of his scores based on the number of categories contained in the
evaluation should have been markedly higher than 2.5.
60.
For example, plaintiff’s average for “performance areas” was actually 3.75,
and contained no rating which was less than 3.0. Similarly, plaintiff’s average for “behavior
dimensions” was 3.25, still well above the 2.5 rating that he received.
61.
In addition, the balance of the evaluation contained the following praise
for plaintiff:
P.O. Schoolcraft shows good community interaction by
eliciting information from witnesses and victims. He also
mediates problems between disputing individuals and
provides counseling when families have conflicts. P.O.
Schoolcraft is able to complete arrest forms accurately and
completely [and] is able to fingerprint, photograph and
process all arrest related paperwork.
62.
Thus, it is clear that plaintiff’s failure to meet the NYPD summons/arrests
quota which plaintiff’s supervisors termed “poor activity” and attributed to plaintiff’s
“unwilling[ness] to change his approach to meeting performance standards” was the real
reason why plaintiff received such a poor performance evaluation.
Plaintiff Challenges His Low Work Evaluation, Resulting in Intense Scrutiny By His
Supervisors
63.
Thereafter, plaintiff immediately informed his supervisors of his intention to
appeal his evaluation based on the fact that they had either miscalculated their overall rating or
he had been evaluated on an illegal and unconstitutional basis (i.e. not meeting arrest/summons
quota).
64.
On February 1, 2009, following plaintiff’s disclosure of his intention to appeal,
a poster that read “IF YOU DON’T LIKE YOUR JOB THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET
ANOTHER JOB” was posted to plaintiff’s locker.
12
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 13 of 64
65.
On February 3, 2009, Sgt. Meyer, the Squad Sergeant at the 81st Precinct,
directly pressured plaintiff to increase his summons activity:
“WHY DON’T YOU JUST
CONFORM? THEY WANT A BOOK (20 SUMMONSES), SO EVERYONE WRITES 15
(SUMMONSES). YOU COULD GET AWAY WITH 10 OR 12 (SUMMONSES) AND A
COLLAR (ARREST).”
66.
Following
that
incident,
on
February 20,
2009
plaintiff
ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was approached by MASCOL who informed plaintiff that the only way
plaintiff could improve future performance evaluations, was if plaintiff raised his “ACTIVITY,
by writing “MORE SUMMONSES” and being “MORE PROACTIVE.”
67.
In response to this ultimatum, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT informed
MASCOL that he would try to improve his activity but that he would not write illegal
summonses or arrest people in the absence of probable cause to believe that a summonsable or
arrestable offense had been committed.
Defendants Attempt To “Strong-Arm” Plaintiff Into Dropping His Appeal
68.
Thereafter, on February 25, 2009, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was
commanded to a meeting with all of the supervisors at the 81st Precinct to discuss the appeal of
his evaluation.
69.
The meeting was attended by, amongst others, DEPUTY INSPECTOR
STEVEN MAURIELLO, SERGEANT WEISS, LIEUTENANT DELAFUENTE, CAPTAIN
THEODORE
LAUTERBORN,
LIEUTENANT
RAFAEL
MASCOL,
LIEUTENANT
TIMOTHY CAUGHEY, and SERGEANT RAYMOND STUKES.
70.
During this meeting, the aforementioned supervisors repeatedly attempted to
discourage plaintiff from appealing his performance evaluation and implicitly threatened plaintiff
with retaliation if he pursued the issue.
13
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 14 of 64
71.
In addition, in an aggressive, threatening tone, a PBA union official at the
meeting expressed “concern” that the appeal would be reviewed by DEPUTY CHIEF
MICHAEL MARINO and “HE’S GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR EVALUATION, HE MAY
PULL UP ALL YOUR ACTIVITY AND THEN HE’S GOING TO SAY YOU WANT TO
KNOW WHAT YOUR EVALUATION IS? LOOK AT THE ACTIVITY, WHAT ARE YOU
FUCKING KIDDING ME?! KNOWING HIM, HE’S GOING TO TALK A LOT OF SHIT.”
72.
In fact, the sole purpose of the meeting was that plaintiff had an
insufficient number of summonses and arrests and as such his evaluation was warranted.
73.
The commanding officers at this meeting repeatedly informed plaintiff that
he could get a higher evaluation if he would raise his activity, but when plaintiff repeatedly
requested an explanation as to the definition of “activity” he was repeatedly informed he needed
to write more summonses and arrests.
74.
Specifically, plaintiff was informed in sum and substance “HOW ARE WE
GOING TO JUDGE SOMEBODY THAT HAS TEN COLLARS THROUGH THE YEAR AND
MAYBE 25 SUMMONSES THROUGH THE YEAR, COMPARED TO SOMEONE WHO’S
GOT 4 COLLARS WITH 14 SUMMONSES THROUGH THE YEAR? THERE’S GOT TO BE
SOME VARIATION. THE SQUAD SERGEANT MAKES A DETERMINATION WHO
HIS TOP GUYS ARE, COMPARED TO HIS LOWER GUYS. THAT’S HOW IT’S DONE.”
75.
Then, in a blatantly transparent act of intimidation, the PBA union officer at
the meeting then referenced police officers who had previously been terminated or transferred as
a result of vocalizing objections to their evaluations.
76.
This meeting was an overt attempt to silence plaintiff’s appeal because of the
supervisor’s prior knowledge of the illegality of issuing substandard performance evaluations -based on an officer’s failure to meet a summons quota, which had been firmly established by the
14
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 15 of 64
Labor Arbitration Tribunal more than three years earlier.
The NYPD’s Quota Policy: Struck Down As Illegal in January 2006
77.
In fact, the NYPD had previously been found to be in violation of New York
State Labor Law Section 215-a, which makes it illegal to issue poor evaluations for an officer’s
failure to meet the requirement of an established summons quota. See In the Matter of P.B.A.
and City of New York Case # A-10699-04.
78.
The aforementioned decision was based on Police Officer David Velez’s
appeal of his 2005 performance evaluation from the 75th Precinct, which was based entirely
on his failure to meet the minimum summons quota. (Id.)
79.
In that matter, P.O. Velez presented evidence that the then Commanding
Officer of the 75th Precinct, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, a named defendant in the instant
matter, issued a directive that officers must meet “a quota of 10 (ten) summons per month” and
“that the police officers in squad A-1 received lower marks on their evaluations if the officers
did not meet ‘this minimum requirement.” (Id. at 9).
80.
Additionally, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO reduced this directive to writing
and distributed it to all of the supervisors in the 75th Precinct. (Id.)
81.
The aforementioned written directive ordered that supervising officers were
required to evaluate officers based on their adherence to the minimum quota of summonses and
arrests. Id.
82.
As a result of CHIEF MARINO’s directive, Sgt. Lurch issued a memo to
all officers in the 75th Precinct “remind[ing] [officers] that a FAILURE TO WRITE THE
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF SUMMONSES AND FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED
NUMBER OF ARREST FOR EACH RATING PERIOD WILL RESULT IN SUBSTANDARD
15
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 16 of 64
PERFORMANCE RATINGS.” (Id. at 10).
83.
The aforementioned memo was entitled “Squad Activity Expectations,” and
the word “activity” in that memo was specifically referring to the requisite number of
summonses needed to meet the quota, which is unequivocal evidence of the fact that P.O.
SCHOOLCRAFT’s own low evaluation in the present matter based on his “poor activity”
directly correlates to non-compliance with an illegal summons/arrest quota.
84.
While defendants denied the existence of any quota, the arbitrator
emphatically rejected defendants’ claims:
The Arbitrator finds that C.O. Marino’s writing and Sergeant
Lurch’s memo could not have been clearer: “failure to write the
required amount of summonses… will result in substandard
performance ratings...”
Further, the asterisk in the ‘ goal’
column makes it clear that [these] goals are monthly, quarterly and
yearly. The Arbitrator is completely persuaded that the “goals”
column on this memo meets the definition in Labor Law Section
215-a for “quota” ... [Thus], the New York Police Department
violated New York State Labor Law Section 215-a by establishing
and maintaining a summons quota...”
(Id. at 10, 27) (emphasis added).
85.
Notwithstanding this finding, the chief perpetrator of this unlawful policy,
MICHAEL MARINO, was subsequently promoted by the NYPD as Deputy Chief of Patrol
Borough Brooklyn North, in charge of supervising the entire Borough, which is also where
the 81st Precinct is located.
86.
Given the existence of the aforementioned related appeal and subsequent
decision, it is clear that the February 25, 2009 “meeting” was an obvious effort to prevent
plaintiff’s appeal, to avoid the repercussions to defendants which could follow if they were
found to have violated the previous order, and engaged in this illegal quota practice once again.
87.
Furthermore, this “meeting” was an attempt to prevent plaintiff from exposing
16
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 17 of 64
the NYPD’s pattern and practice of falsifying training logs during roll calls, in which
commanding officers would require patrol officers to sign a log indicating that they had received
training that day on various police subjects, when in fact, they had received no such training
from their supervisors.
Plaintiff Refuses to Drop His Appeal and Instead Directly Challenges the NYPD’s Unlawful
Quota Policy
88.
It is clear that t h e February 25, 2009 “meeting” was an obvious effort to
prevent plaintiff’s appeal to avoid the repercussions to defendants which could follow.
89.
Notwithstanding their implicit threats and veiled tactics of intimidation,
plaintiff informed the group that he would pursue the appeal.
90.
Thereafter, on March 11, 2009, plaintiff’s counsel, Brown & Gropper, wrote
a letter to defendant MAURIELLO which directly challenged the NYPD’s unlawful quota policy
and the use of this policy as a basis for plaintiff’s performance evaluation. Specifically, in this
letter, plaintiff’s counsel wrote as follows:
We are concerned that our client’s negative evaluation is based not
on the factors set forth in Patrol Guide 205-48, but rather on his
alleged lack of “activity” related to his number of arrests and
summons issued. Yet, Patrol Guide 205-48 makes no reference to
“activity” levels.
Furthermore, we are unaware of any Patrol
Guide provision which defines how much “activity” is required to
achieve a satisfactory evaluation.
Plaintiff’s Refusal to Drop His Appeal Results in Increased Harassment and Intimidation
by His Superior Officers
91.
As a result of plaintiff’s intention to pursue his appeal, plaintiff’s supervisors
at the 81st Precinct began to create an increasingly hostile work environment for him.
92.
Specifically, on March 16, 2009, defendant CAUGHEY issued plaintiff a
written reprimand for not documenting in his memo book that he had used the bathroom facility
on his assigned post.
17
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 18 of 64
93.
Defendant CAUGHEY also confiscated plaintiff’s memo book and made a
photocopy of plaintiff’s official notes, which documented defendants’ previous misconduct, and
more specifically, that of WEISS.
94.
That same day plaintiff reported the incident to the duty Captain,
defendant LAUTERBORN.
95.
Plaintiff requested that defendant LAUTERBORN document this act of
retaliation against him in a report.
96.
Defendant LAUTERBORN responded to this request in sum and substance:
“WHAT DO YOU WANT TO REPORT? DIDN’T WE TELL YOU WHEN YOU LEFT HERE
THAT THERE’S GONNA BE A LOT MORE SUPERVISION? THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS…
YOU THINK THAT THIS IS… YOU KNOW… RETALIATION… THIS IS A MATTER OF
SUPERVISION.”
97.
Defendant LAUTERBORN further warned plaintiff that, after the threat of
a transfer, “THE DEVIL YOU KNOW IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE DEVIL YOU
DON’T,” and that from this point onward, plaintiff better “CROSS YOUR I(S) AND DOT
YOUR T(S).”
98.
During this conversation, defendant LAUTERBORN informed plaintiff that
he was being carefully monitored because of his “POOR PERFORMANCE” and suggested that
it should not be a surprise now if even minor infractions result in disciplinary action, even if
they had not previously resulted in such action.
99.
Defendant LAUTERBORN further informed plaintiff that he was being placed
on “PERFORMANCE MONITORING” because his “NUMBERS” were not sufficient and that
defendant MAURIELLO was a “FANATIC” about ensuring officers have high “ACTIVITY,”
implicitly threatening to transfer plaintiff should he not increase his “ACTIVITY.”
18
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 19 of 64
100.
As he had previously informed MASCOL, plaintiff reiterated to defendant
LAUTERBORN that he would work to improve his “ACTIVITY” but refused to issue illegal
summonses or make false arrests absent probable cause of a crime or violation, to which
defendant LAUTERBORN responded by openly mocking plaintiff:
“YOU WANT TO BE
‘MR. COMMUNITY’, IS THAT WHAT YOUR DOING?!”
101.
Defendant LAUTERBORN proceeded to provide plaintiff with examples of
situations where plaintiff could make arrests or issue summonses to increase his activity despite
the fact that there had been “NO VIOLATION OF LAW.”
102.
Specifically, defendant LAUTERBORN instructed plaintiff to approach and
detain young adults merely for sitting in front of a high crime building, regardless of probable
cause or reasonable suspicion.
103.
Further defendant LAUTERBORN then suggested that were he to hear one
of those individuals curse during this interaction, it would then be appropriate to arrest them
despite having committed “NO VIOLATION OF LAW,” because the police cannot appear
“SOFT” in these neighborhoods.
Defendants Attempt to Isolate and Separate Plaintiff from His Fellow Officers
104.
In a further effort to intimidate plaintiff, in March of 2009 defendants also
began to isolate plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT from his fellow officers by threatening and
disciplining Police Officer Chan for simply talking to plaintiff.
105.
As a result fellow police officers at the 81st precinct consistently avoided
plaintiff out of fear that supervisors would retaliate against them.
Defendants Escalate Their Intimidation Tactics by Taking Away Plaintiff’s Gun and Shield
106.
Thereafter, plaintiff learned from P.O. ZUCKER of the 81st Precinct that
defendants were attempting to execute a scenario portraying plaintiff as being psychologically
19
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 20 of 64
unfit to work.
107.
Specifically, on March 16, 2009, WEISS was overheard stating, in reference to
plaintiff: “I’M GOING TO HAVE HIM PSYCHED.”
108.
In April of 2009, defendants saw an opportunity to pursue this scheme
when plaintiff had a legitimate health issue.
109.
In furtherance of this plan, plaintiff was required to consult NYPD
psychologist Dr. Catherine Lamstein for a psychological evaluation following an examination
by NYPD police surgeon, Joseph Cuffio, M.D., for chest pains he experienced on April 3, 2009.
110.
During his examination with Dr. Lamstein, plaintiff disclosed the existence
of illegal NYPD policies and practices and other corruption he had observed over the past couple
of years.
111.
At the conclusion of Dr. Lamstein’s examination, and immediately following
plaintiff’s disclosure of rampant corruption within the 81st Precinct, Dr. Lamstein abruptly
excused herself from the room for several minutes and suddenly returned only to inform plaintiff
that he was required to immediately surrender his gun and shield.
Plaintiff’s Appeal Is Suddenly Closed Without His Knowledge or Consent
112.
On April 14, 2009, the following day, plaintiff’s performance evaluation
appeal was “coincidentally” and inexplicably closed, without a hearing or notice of any kind as
to the basis of the closure.
113.
It should be noted that while the appeal was closed in fact on April 14,
2009, plaintiff was not informed of that fact at the time and learned of that fact only after he made
inquiries about the status of his appeal.
114.
Despite being denied any information regarding his appeal, plaintiff continued
to relentlessly inquire about the appeal process, when and if a hearing would ever be scheduled
20
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 21 of 64
or held, to which NYPD officials repeatedly refused to disclose any information, and feigned
ignorance.
115.
Additionally, plaintiff repeatedly sent letters to the Patrolman’s Benevolent
Association (hereinafter “PBA”) and their lawyers, in furtherance of pressing his appeal, to
which they repeatedly informed him that they could not help.
Defendants Attempt To Further Isolate and Degrade Plaintiff by Assigning Him to the
Telephone Switchboard
116.
Thereafter, throughout the summer of 2009, plaintiff continued to be
systematically isolated from the remainder of the precinct in the form of reassignment to
telephone switchboard duty.
117.
While there plaintiff was subjected to overt attempts of intimidation
and harassment in the form of fellow police officers and supervising officers referring to him as
a “ZERO” and/or the “HOUSE MOUSE.”
118.
Additionally, throughout his reassignment, plaintiff witnessed further evidence
of continued corruption and subornation of perjury on numerous occasions in the form of
officers, commanding and subordinate, falsifying information contained in complainant crime
reports (UF-61’s) and/or failing to issue them altogether in the face of reported crime.
119.
During the same period, despite having his gun and shield removed due to
his alleged psychological instability and/or concerns for his and his fellow officers’ safety,
plaintiff was assigned to voucher loaded weapons and was assigned to handle arrests.
Plaintiff Reports the Corruption He Has Witnessed To Internal Affairs
120.
On August 18, 2009, in response to this campaign of retaliation and
intimidation, plaintiff’s father, Larry Schoolcraft, contacted David Durk, a former NYPD
Detective who had assisted Frank Serpico in the 1970s in uncovering corruption within the
21
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 22 of 64
NYPD to seek his counsel regarding the proper actions to be taken.
121.
Following that conversation, David Durk contacted Brandon Del Pozo at
the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) to apprise him of the corruption within the 81st Precinct.
122.
Thereafter, on August 20, 2009 plaintiff contacted IAB directly, by filing
an Unusual Incident Report (UF-49), alleging that defendant CAUGHEY -- ironically the
Integrity Control Officer for the 81st precinct -- had unlawfully aided Weiss’ entry into a locked
office at the precinct and removed potentially damaging documents from SGT. WEISS’
personnel file, all at the behest of WEISS.
123.
Specifically, in this report, entitled “CORRUPTION INVOLVING THE
INTEGRITY CONTROL PROGRAM OF THE 81ST PRECINCT”, plaintiff alleged as follows:
Sergeant Steven Weiss (Assistant Integrity Control Officer, 81st
Precinct), assisted by his supervisor, a Lieutenant Timothy
st
Caughey (Integrity Control Officer, 81 Precinct”), did intentionally
enter, without permission or authority, a locked office containing
sensitive department files, and removed documents pertaining to
Civilian Complaints that were inside Sgt. Weiss’s Department
Personnel Folder ... [These] documents were a potential obstacle
with regards to Sgt. Weiss’ future Evaluation and Promotion to
New York City Police Lieutenant. Sgt. Weiss has since been
promoted to New York City Police Lieutenant and is no longer
assigned to the 81st Precinct...It would appear [that] Sgt. Weiss has
benefitted greatly from his action(s).
124.
This complaint was sent directly to Chief Charles V. Campisi, Chief of the
Internal Affairs Bureau, via certified mail on August 20, 2009.
Plaintiff’s Superiors Become Aware of Plaintiff’s Complaints to Internal Affairs
125.
Almost immediately after informing IAB of these illegal practices and
widespread corruption at the 81st Precinct, IAB detectives repeatedly left messages for plaintiff
at the 81st Precinct, despite the explicit duty of IAB to keep such complaints confidential,
effectively and implicitly alerting plaintiff’s superiors that he was now communicating with
22
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 23 of 64
IAB on investigations, criminal in nature, concerning the 81st Precinct.
126.
On September 2, 2009, plaintiff sent a written request to defendant
STEVEN MAURIELLO requesting in writing that the appeal of his evaluation be sent directly to
the Patrol Borough Brooklyn North immediately.
127.
Not only did defendant STEVEN MAURIELLO fail to issue any response to
this request, but he had never even previously sent the appeal -- as he was mandated to -- nor did
he ever inform plaintiff that his appeal had been closed in April, despite plaintiff’s repeated
inquiries.
Plaintiff Reveals Rampant Illegal Conduct At the 81st Precinct to the Quality Assurance
Division of the NYPD
128.
Thereafter, on October 7, 2009, during the course of a three hour meeting with
the Quality Assurance Division (“QAD”), plaintiff described in detail repeated instances of
police misconduct he had witnessed in the 81st Precinct, including but not limited to,
commanding and supervising officers’ manipulation of crime statistics and enforcement of illegal
quota policies.
129.
In that meeting plaintiff discussed, inter alia, the illegal quota policy and the
underreporting, manipulation and/or falsification of crime reports made to NYPD officials in
the 81st Precinct.
130.
Specifically, plaintiff reported at least thirteen instances where crimes were
being underreported in order to avoid index crime classification – i.e. Felony Grand Larceny and
Robbery underreported to reflect Misdemeanor Lost Property, etc.
131.
Further, in order to accomplish these ends, the allegations of crime reports had
actually been manipulated by supervising officers and in some cases were never documented at
all by the NYPD.
23
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 24 of 64
132.
On October 14, 2009, one week following the aforesaid meeting with
QAD, plaintiff was officially placed on performance monitoring by the employee management
division of the NYPD.
133.
On October 19, 2009, in an increasingly desperate attempt to suppress
plaintiff’s disclosure of the corruption and deceptive practices plaguing the 81st Precinct,
defendant CAUGHEY issued a precinct-wide personnel memo to all personnel of the 81st
Precinct ordering any and all calls from IAB be first directed to his office, regardless of the
specific officer IAB was attempting to contact.
134.
On October 21, 2009, plaintiff was interviewed by telephone by members of
the “Group I” Internal Affairs Bureau regarding his allegations of misconduct against
defendants CAUGHEY and WEISS.
135.
On October 21, 2009, with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety and
welfare, IAB attempted to contact plaintiff to discuss the substance of the UF-49 he had filed
against defendant CAUGHEY on August 20, 2009, a call which was routed first to defendant
CAUGHEY who was also the subject of the complaint.
Plaintiff Continues to Pursue His Appeal But To No Avail
136.
Thereafter on October 28, 2009, plaintiff contacted SGT DEVINO to arrange a
meeting regarding the status of his appeal.
137.
At this meeting SGT DEVINO informed plaintiff that she was ignorant to
the status of plaintiff’s appeal and feigned sentiments of surprise and disbelief that the process
was still ongoing.
138.
Thereafter,
plaintiff’s
father,
Larry
Schoolcraft,
contacted
Mayor
Bloomberg’s office to report the repeated and continuing instances of corruption within the 81st
Precinct, to which plaintiff had bore witness, and to inquire as to the reason plaintiff was being
24
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 25 of 64
deprived the right to appeal his performance evaluation.
On October 31, 2009 Plaintiff is Menaced at Work by Lt. Caughey, Whom Plaintiff Had
Previously Reported to Internal Affairs
139.
Thereafter, on October 31, 2009, upon commencement of his tour of duty,
defendant CAUGHEY asked to “scratch” or inspect plaintiff’s memo book and when plaintiff
complied, defendant CAUGHEY confiscated the memo book.
140.
Upon confiscation of his memo book, defendant CAUGHEY proceeded to
lock himself in a room for three hours in order to make copies of plaintiff’s notes contained
therein, which at this point now included specific instances of the corruption and illegal activity
plaintiff had documented in preparation for his report to Commissioner Kelly.
141.
Following defendant CAUGHEY’s confiscation of plaintiff’s memo book,
defendant CAUGHEY began to exhibit menacing and threatening behavior towards plaintiff.
142.
Specifically, defendant CAUGHEY with one hand near his gun, made
continuous menacing gestures directed at plaintiff in an apparent response to the evidence of
corruption contained within plaintiff’s memo book implicating defendants.
Plaintiff Leaves Work One Hour Early After Receiving Permission To Do So From Sgt.
Huffman
143.
Thereafter, at approximately 12:15 p.m. on October 31, 2008, Plaintiff was
advised by civilian employee P.A.A. Boston, who had become aware of defendant CAUGHEY’s
increasingly threatening behavior, that plaintiff’s safety may be in jeopardy.
144.
As a result of this admonishment and plaintiff’s independent observations,
plaintiff’s fear consequently manifested itself in feelings of sickness, at which time plaintiff
elected to go home rather than subject himself to potential physical harm from defendant
CAUGHEY.
25
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 26 of 64
145.
At approximately 2:45 p.m. on October 31, 2009, less than one hour before
his tour was scheduled to end, plaintiff sought permission to take sick leave, which he submitted
to SERGEANT RASHEENA HUFFMAN.
146.
In response to plaintiff’s request, SERGEANT HUFFMAN approved
plaintiff’s release, but following plaintiff’s departure, HUFFMAN subsequently and without
reason rescinded her approval.
147.
Immediately upon plaintiff’s arrival at his home, plaintiff contacted IAB to
report defendant CAUGHEY’s threatening behavior.
148.
Thereafter, plaintiff, fearful of the impending retaliatory acts to follow,
contacted his father, Larry Schoolcraft, to report and document what had just transpired, after
which plaintiff attempted to sleep in an effort to alleviate his feelings of illness.
149.
While asleep, plaintiff received a voicemail message on his phone from
Dr. Lamstein -- who had last seen plaintiff on October 27, 2009, and who knew first-hand that
plaintiff had no psychiatric disorders whatsoever -- who was clearly bewildered as to why
defendants required plaintiff to return to command, despite her repeated advisements to plaintiff’s
supervisors that in her medical and professional opinion, plaintiff posed no threat to himself or
others. Dr. Lamstein nevertheless admonished plaintiff, presumably at defendants’ direction,
that if he did not return immediately, this would “[BLOW] UP TO A MUCH BIGGER MESS
THAN [PLAINTIFF] WOULD WANT.”
The NYPD Threatens a “City-Wide Search” For Plaintiff If He Does Not Return To Work
150.
Additionally, on about or in between the aforesaid correspondence, defendant
LAUTERBORN contacted Larry Schoolcraft inquiring as to plaintiff’s whereabouts.
151.
In response, at approximately 7:40 p.m. on October 31, 2009, Larry
Schoolcraft returned the call and explained to defendant LAUTERBORN that he had
26
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 27 of 64
communicated with his son who had informed him that he was at home, feeling sick and wanted
to rest, to which defendant LAUTERBORN responded in sum and substance “[SHOULD
PLAINTIFF NOT RETURN TO THE 81st PRECINCT], THIS IS GOING TO GET TO BE A
LARGE SCALE EVENT…WHEN THE BELLS AND WHISTLES GO OFF ITS GOING TO
BE A CITY WIDE SEARCH FOR ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT.”
152.
Following that statement, Larry Schoolcraft inquired as to the urgency of
Adrian’s return to the 81st Precinct that same day, to which defendant LAUTERBORN gave no
legitimate explanation and instead, in an increasingly threatening manner, advised plaintiff’s
father that things were going to escalate should plaintiff not return immediately to the 81st
Precinct.
Defendants Unlawfully Enter Plaintiff’s Home and Illegally Seize Him in Order to Prevent
Him From Disclosing to the Public His Findings of Corruption
153.
Thereafter, on October 31, 2009 at approximately 9:38 p.m., plaintiff, who
was lawfully present inside of his home located at 8260 88th Place, Apt. 2L, Glendale, NY
11385, was confronted with approximately ten (10) armed high ranking police officers, including
but not limited to, CHIEF MICHAEL MARINO, and STEVEN MAURIELLO, who unlawfully
entered his home without a warrant, permission, or other legally permissible reason to do so.
154.
In addition, at least two members of the Emergency Services Unit–dressed in
full riot gear with helmets on and guns drawn –also illegally entered plaintiff’s apartment.
155.
Upon defendants’ unlawful entry into plaintiff’s home, the aforementioned
defendants ordered plaintiff to get dressed and commanded him to return to the 81st Precinct
without any legitimate or lawful explanation.
156.
In a remarkable display of calmness under the circumstances, plaintiff
repeatedly and composedly requested the reasons why defendants were unlawfully in his home
27
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 28 of 64
commanding him back to the 81 st Precinct against his will, to which defendants pretextually
responded that they were “worried” and “concerned” for plaintiff’s safety and wellbeing despite
plaintiff’s repeated assurances that he was merely feeling sick and not in any way a danger to
himself or others and despite the fact that plaintiff’s own NYPD appointed psychologist had
previously informed defendants that same day that any such fears were medically unfounded.
157.
Immediately thereafter, plaintiff was informed that he was under suspension
for leaving work early that day.
158.
Further, plaintiff expressly acknowledged that were there work related
consequences for his departure, defendants should simply follow the normal protocol and file the
proper paperwork to which plaintiff would respond accordingly.
Defendants Threaten To Treat Plaintiff as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person” If He Does
Not Leave His Apartment “Voluntarily”
159.
Despite plaintiff’s overwhelmingly reasonable response, which was in total
and utter compliance with NYPD protocol and practice, defendants responded with a continued
refusal to leave plaintiff’s home, subsequently ordering him while armed, to the hospital illegally
and against his will, to which plaintiff responded by repeatedly asserting his rights under New
York law to refuse unwanted medical treatment.
160.
In retaliation to plaintiff’s assertion of his rights, and with the knowledge
that plaintiff potentially possessed evidence of defendants’ criminal activity and corruption,
defendant MICHAEL MARINO responded with the following ultimatum: “YOU HAVE A
CHOICE. YOU GET UP LIKE A MAN AND PUT YOUR SHOES ON AND WALK INTO
THAT BUS [ambulance], OR THEY’RE GOING TO TREAT YOU AS AN E.D.P. [emotionally
disturbed person] AND THAT MEANS HANDCUFFS.”
161.
Immediately thereafter, a series of verbal exchanges occurred between
28
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 29 of 64
plaintiff and defendant CHIEF MARINO, in which plaintiff calmly and repeatedly expressed to
defendants that he was refusing any more medical attention and refused to be involuntarily
removed from his home.
162.
Aware that his attempts to threaten and coerce plaintiff into complicity with
defendants’ unlawful scheme to otherwise silence plaintiff were futile, defendant CHIEF
MICHAEL MARINO impatiently stated in sum and substance: “ALL RIGHT, JUST TAKE
HIM, I CAN’T FUCKING STAND HIM ANYMORE” and commanded that the police officers
present at the location to forcibly take plaintiff into custody.
163.
At all relevant times on October 31, 2009, defendant CHIEF GERALD
NELSON was aware of defendant MARINO’s actions and in fact, expressly authorized defendant
MARINO to unlawfully enter plaintiff’s residence, remove plaintiff against his will, and
involuntarily confine plaintiff in a psychiatric ward.
164.
Upon information and belief the NYPD alleged defendant LIEUTENANT
ELISE HANLON also intentionally (and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants) falsely
classified plaintiff as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person” in order to effectuate plaintiff’s
involuntary removal from his home.
165.
Upon information and belief defendant LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON also
intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants ordered and/or authorized plaintiff be
taken into EMS custody as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person.”
166.
Upon information and belief defendant LIEUTENANT ELISE HANLON also
intentionally and/or at the behest of the NYPD defendants provided JAMAICA HOSPITAL with
false information regarding plaintiff’s classification as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person,” in
order to effectuate plaintiff’s involuntary confinement.
29
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 30 of 64
Plaintiff Is Violently Attacked and Forcibly Removed From His Own Home against His
Will
167.
Immediately
thereafter,
several
defendant
police
officers,
including
defendants LT. WILLIAM GOUGH, SGT. KURT DUNCAN, and LT. CHRISTOPHER
BROSCHART, pulled plaintiff out of his bed, physically assaulted him, tore his clothes as they
threw him to the floor, illegally strip-searched him and violently handcuffed him with his arms
behind his back, causing excruciating pain to his wrists, shoulders, arms, neck and back.
168.
With plaintiff bound on the floor, alluding to the option plaintiff had been
given of ignoring corruption and illegality, defendant CHIEF MARINO walked over to him and
put his boot on plaintiff’s face, and thereafter stated: “IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE LIKE THIS.”
169.
Defendant CHIEF MARINO then sat on plaintiff’s bed as his officers,
following his commands, illegally searched plaintiff’s body and recovered a digital recorder that
plaintiff was holding. Afraid of what plaintiff might have recorded during this incident,
defendant CHIEF MARINO illegally seized the recorder himself, stating contemptuously that
plaintiff was “BEING CUTE” by trying to record the incident.
170.
Additionally, NYPD spokesperson Paul J. Browne was present outside of
plaintiff’s apartment during the aforementioned illegal home invasion on October 31, 2009,
for the sole purpose of providing to any potential members of the media who might be present
during this abduction a false and misleading account of the facts and circumstances surrounding
plaintiff’s involuntary confinement.
Defendants Conduct an Illegal Search of Plaintiff’s Apartment, Seizing Evidence of
Misconduct by the NYPD
171.
Thereafter, defendants illegally searched plaintiff’s home and illegally seized
substantial evidence of corruption within the 81st Precinct which plaintiff had gathered detailing
the enforcement of illegal quotas and the perjurious manipulation of police reports, as well as
30
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 31 of 64
plaintiff’s notes regarding his complaints against the 81st precinct.
172.
Specifically, defendants illegally seized a draft of his Report to the Police
Commissioner, Raymond Kelly, entitled “A Patrolman’s Report to the Commissioner,” and
details of his collaboration with retired New York City Police Detective/Lieutenant David Durk.
as well as the aforementioned digital tape recorder.
173.
In fact, plaintiff’s landlord specifically observed defendants leave plaintiff’s
apartment carrying multiple manila folders in their hands.
174.
Following defendants’ illegal entry, search and seizure of plaintiff’s home,
person and effects, plaintiff was then placed in restraints and carried from his home against his
will by several armed members of the NYPD in full view of a l l p e r s o n s a t t h e s c e n e
on the street.
Defendants Make Blatantly False and Misleading Statements to the Hospital, Resulting in
Plaintiff’s Confinement in the Psychiatric Ward
175.
Thereafter, defendants transported plaintiff involuntarily to the Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center, in an intentional and premeditated fashion and convinced doctors to
have plaintiff involuntarily admitted as an emotionally disturbed person.
176.
Specifically defendants falsely claimed that plaintiff “LEFT WORK EARLY
AFTER GETTING AGITATED AND CURSING HIS SUPERVISOR” and that the police
“FOLLOWED HIM HOME AND HE HAD BARRICADED HIMSELF, AND THE DOOR
HAD TO BE BROKEN TO GET TO HIM.”
177.
It should be noted that the aforementioned false and perjured statements
were emphatically proven false by plaintiff’s landlord, who provided information that plaintiff’s
door was never forcibly entered, but in fact the landlord had provided keys to defendant
MARINO in response to the false pretense provided by defendants that plaintiff was “suicidal.”
31
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 32 of 64
178.
Further, defendants also falsely claimed that plaintiff “INITIALLY AGREED
TO GO WITH THEM FOR EVALUATION, BUT ONCE OUTSIDE, HE RAN AND HAD TO
BE CHASED.”
179.
These statements were also proven to be demonstrably false by EMT
records, which clearly and flatly refute defendants’ claims that plaintiff “ran” away and
“had to be chased”.
180.
At no point on October 31, 2009 did plaintiff exhibit or engage in any of
the behavior that defendants’ falsely alleged in order to secure plaintiff’s involuntary confinement.
Plaintiff Is Handcuffed and Restrained in the Emergency Room, Where He is Denied
Fundamental Rights and Treated as a Criminal
181.
After his arrival to Jamaica Hospital, plaintiff was handcuffed to a gurney
for more than nine hours, during which time he was denied the free use of phone, or reasonable
access to water, food or bathroom facilities.
182.
When, on one occasion plaintiff was allowed to make a phone call at
approximately 6:00 a.m., one of the NYPD members watching over him, DEFENDANT
SAWYER, said out loud: “HEY, I THOUGHT PERPS WEREN’T ALLOWED TO USE THE
PHONE.” Thereafter, DEFENDANT SAWYER forcibly disconnected the phone and hung it
up, thereby instantly terminating plaintiff’s phone call.
183.
SGT. SAWYER then said “OKAY, NOW!”, at which point SGT. SAWYER,
assisted by other members of the New York City Police department–including SGT. SHANTEL
JAMES, P.O. RAYMOND MILLER and P.O. ARTHUR SADOWSKI,–forcibly grabbed
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 stated “This is what
happens to rats” and placed a second handcuff on plaintiff’s left hand so tightly that it caused
32
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 33 of 64
excruciating pain, and caused his hand to turn blue.
Plaintiff Spends Three Full Days In The Emergency Room of the Psychiatric Ward
184.
From October 31, 2009 through November 2, 2009, plaintiff was
involuntarily confined in the medical and psychiatric emergency rooms of Jamaica Hospital.
185.
While there plaintiff was kept involuntarily confined with other psychiatric
patients in a room that had no windows and was secured by double locked sequential doors, with
a security guard present at all times standing outside.
186.
While in the JHMC emergency room, plaintiff was forced to relinquish all of
his clothing and personal possessions. The only clothing plaintiff was given was a hospital
gown. He was not even allowed to wear underwear.
187.
Further, during the first three days in the hospital, plaintiff was not even given
a bed to sleep in. Rather, he was forced to sleep every night on a gurney located in the hallway
of the emergency room of the psychiatric ward. As a result, there were always lights on
and plaintiff had no privacy whatsoever.
188.
Most importantly, during this time, plaintiff was denied p h y s i c a l access
to the outside world. Plaintiff repeatedly requested an opportunity to speak with internal affairs,
and to have photographs taken of his multiple bruises, but these requests were steadfastly ignored
by doctors and hospital staff as well as NYPD personnel until sometime 48 hours or more after
the assault on plaintiff at his home on October 31, 2009.
189.
After three days, plaintiff was formally admitted into the psychiatric ward
at JHMC, where he spent the remainder of his confinement.
190.
For the duration of his involuntary hospitalization, plaintiff was forced to
cohabit with individuals who had severe psychiatric disorders and engaged in bizarre and
unsettling behavior.
33
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 34 of 64
191.
For example, one patient routinely combed his hair with feces, while
another patient continuously walked around the unit wearing bloody bandages on his wrists and
neck.
192.
Additionally, while in the medical emergenc y room another patient
tried repeatedly and persistently to induce herself to vomit, which she succeeded in doing right
near plaintiff. Still other patients in the hospital’s psychiatric emergency room would routinely
scream and yell until they were forcibly sedated.
193.
There were no clocks in the unit, nor were there any mirrors.
Plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was completely cut off from the outside world, and there was
nothing he could do it about it.
Plaintiff’s Involuntary Confinement Continues for Six Full Days, in Clear Violation of New
York Law
194.
For six full days, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was confined against
his will at Jamaica Hospital.
195.
This confinement was unlawful, illegal and in clear violation of both New
York law and the Constitution of the United States.
196.
There was no medical or psychiatric basis whatsoever for detaining plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT.
197.
To the contrary, hospital records make clear that plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was at all times, lucid, rational and fully coherent and exhibited no signs
whatsoever of presenting a danger to himself or to others. In fact as defendant ISAKOV himself
noted:
During the observation in the unit without taking any medications,
patient was appropriate in interaction, calm and not agitated. He
denied suicidal or homicidal ideations. He was not experiencing
34
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 35 of 64
any paranoid ideations, but was concerned about issues in the
precinct. After observation for a few days on the unit, there were
no significant psychiatric symptoms to treat with medications.
198.
In fact, from the very outset, when plaintiff was first examined at JHMC, it
was manifestly clear that plaintiff was not in need of any psychiatric treatment, much less
involuntary confinement in a psychiatric ward. As the hospital itself noted about plaintiff:
He is coherent, relevant with goal directed speech and good eye
contact. He is irritable with appropriate affect. He denies
hallucination ... He denies suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation at
the present time. His memory and concentration is intact. He is
alert and oriented ....
199.
Plaintiff’s clear mental state was so obvious that one of the doctors who
initially examined plaintiff stated out loud that it was “ridiculous” that he was even brought
to the hospital, and assured plaintiff that he would be going home shortly.
200.
Notwithstanding this fact, and despite the objective medical evidence
documenting that plaintiff did not meet the psychological criteria of an emotionally disturbed
patient requiring confinement, plaintiff remained unlawfully and involuntarily detained without
any justification for six (6) days.
201.
Additionally, plaintiff was denied the right to vote on November 3, 2009,
despite repeated requests to do so, a fact that is even documented in the medical records of JHMC.
202.
On November 6, 2009, plaintiff was suddenly deemed safe, despite no change
in plaintiff’s prior behavior, and released from Jamaica Hospital.
203.
In detaining plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT against his will, defendant
JHMC violated the express provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a). This statute provides,
inter alia, that a patient may not be detained against his will unless there is either 1) a
“substantial risk of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide or
35
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 36 of 64
other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself” or 2) “a substantial risk of physical
harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are
placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.”
204.
Additionally, defendant ALDANA-BERNIER violated the express provisions
of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a) w h e n she failed to perform the necessary tests and
examinations in order to determine that plaintiff was either 1) a “substantial risk of physical
harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide or other conduct demonstrating
that he is dangerous to himself” or 2) “a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as
manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of
serious physical harm.”
205.
Further, defendant ALDANA-BERNIER falsified hospital reports in order
to secure plaintiffs continued confinement in the psychiatric ward when she noted “PATIENT IS
A DANGER TO HIMSELF,” without performing any medical test to substantiate this.
206.
As defendant JHMC’s own records make clear, neither of these criteria was
even remotely satisfied. Accordingly, defendants’ continued detention of plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was a gross violation of legal, medical and ethical standards, and as such, was
a clear departure from good and accepted medical practices.
207.
Finally, as a final insult, following his release from JHMC, plaintiff
actually received a bill in the amount of $7,185.00 for his involuntary confinement, for which
JHMC actually collected money.
The NYPD’s Crucial Role In Ensuring Plaintiff’s Continued Detention At Jamaica
Hospital
208.
Upon information and belief, all of the aforementioned acts up to and
including plaintiff’s involuntary confinement were part of a deliberate, concentrated and
36
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 37 of 64
premeditated effort to silence plaintiff and intimidate any other members of the NYPD who
sought to disclose the plague of corruption and illegalities within the department.
209.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants entered plaintiff’s home
on October 31, 2009 and illegally seized plaintiff and evidence of NYPD corruption and
misconduct plaintiff had previously gathered.
210.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants conspired to, and did
intentionally falsify evidence and submitted it to JHMC staff for the sole purpose of having
plaintiff committed to its psychiatric ward in an effort to silence, intimidate, threaten or otherwise
deem plaintiff incredible should the evidence of corruption and misconduct within plaintiff’s
possession ever surface.
211.
In furtherance of this objective, the NYPD defendants maintained contact
with JHMC for the six (6) days to ensure that plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT remained at
the hospital, and did so for the sole purpose of ensuring that JHMC continued to detain plaintiff.
212.
In fact, when questioned by plaintiff about his release date, defendant
ISAKOV responded that he “WANTED TO HEAR FROM THE [POLICE] DEPARTMENT
FIRST” before he could answer that question and tell plaintiff when he would be released.
213.
In allowing the NYPD to dictate the medical policy at JHMC, and in utterly
disregarding the legal requirements of Mental Hygiene law § 9.39(a) by ignoring objective
medical evidence that plaintiff was not a danger to himself or others, defendant JHMC departed
from good and accepted medical practice by unlawfully and involuntarily confining plaintiff for
six days.
214.
Additionally, defendant JHMC, in furtherance of its agreement and
conspiracy with NYPD officials, explicitly and/or tacitly formed an agreement to involuntarily
confine plaintiff despite objective medical evidence mandating his release, as a “favor” to
37
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 38 of 64
defendant officers in furtherance of their scheme to ultimately silence plaintiff and/or otherwise
impeach his credibility.
Defendants’ Egregious Conduct Forces Plaintiff To Move Upstate, Yet Defendants’
Campaign of Harassment And Intimidation Continues
215.
As a result of the forgoing, the NYPD defendants, through a campaign of
harassment and intimidation, forced plaintiff to move to upstate New York, approximately 200
miles away from New York City.
216.
Notwithstanding this move, between December 2009 and continuing on
through the present, armed NYPD officials including SERGEANT RICHARD WALL,
SERGEANT ROBERT W. O’HARE, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, CAPTAIN
TIMOTHY TRAINOR, SERGEANT SONDRA WILSON and several other NYPD defendants
continued their relentless efforts to silence, harass and/or otherwise harm plaintiff and his father in
the form of making or directing over a dozen appearances at his home in upstate New York.
217.
During these “visits”, the NYPD has dispatched teams of armed detectives
and other armed members of the New York City Police Department, including SERGEANT
SONDRA WILSON, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY, SERGEANT ROBERT W.
O’HARE and SERGEANT RICHARD WALL to harass and intimidate plaintiff by pounding
and kicking on his door and shouting “NYPD. WE KNOW YOU’RE IN THERE, OPEN UP!!!”
218.
In one instance, on December 9, 2009, one of the aforementioned defendants
drove about 200 miles outside of NYPD jurisdiction on taxpayer’s money–merely to “spy” on
plaintiff through his bedroom window.
219.
In response to this blatant and endless attempt to continuously harass and
intimidate plaintiff, plaintiff moved his bed out of said bedroom in order to prevent imminent
physical and emotional harm upon his person.
38
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 39 of 64
220.
Notwithstanding this action, armed NYPD officials including SERGEANT
RICHARD WALL, SERGEANT ROBERT W. O’HARE, LIEUTENANT THOMAS HANLEY,
SERGEANT SONDRA WILSON and some of the other NYPD defendants continue, to come to
his home, repeatedly pound on his door, photograph him, and engage in efforts designed to
purposefully intimidate and harass plaintiff in a tireless effort to silence him once and for all.
Plaintiff’s Allegations of Corruption and Fraud Within the NYPD Are Substantiated
221.
On June 23, 2010, the Quality Assurance Division within the NYPD issued
a report of its findings regarding the allegations of corruption made by Adrian Schoolcraft prior
to his unlawful imprisonment and detention on October 31, 2009.
222.
The findings of the investigation substantiated the allegations that complaint
reports for index crimes were not being entered into the Omni System complaint database and
that crimes were being improperly reported in order to avoid index crime classification.
223.
Specifically, the general findings of the investigation stemming from the
allegations of corruption made by Officer Schoolcraft concluded that a substantial amount of
crime reports that should have been classified as index crimes were either being downgraded or
not entered into the database at all.
224.
Further, the investigation found that this fraudulent crime recording was the
result of a widespread “pattern and practice,” which created incentives to downgrade index crimes
and/or refuse to record index crimes as reported by civilians.
Defendants’ Pattern of Misconduct and Unlawful Behavior, and the NYPD’s Deliberate
Indifference to Disciplining Supervising Officers.
225.
The incidents set forth above were not isolated events, but rather, were part of
an ongoing pattern of illegal and unlawful conduct on the part of the defendants herein.
226.
In fact, many of the NYPD defendants named in this action have been the
39
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 40 of 64
subject of internal affairs investigations and/or departmental hearings concerning allegations of
misconduct, as set forth below.
Defendant Mauriello’s Misconduct
227.
For example, Defendant MAURIELLO has also been the subject of an internal
affairs investigation.
228.
As a direct result of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT’S allegations, IAB
is investigating defendant MAURIELLO’s manipulation of crime statistics.
229.
Specifically, defendant MAURIELLO routinely fabricated crime reports
resulting in violent felonies being downgraded to petty misdemeanors, creating the appearance
that the 81st Precinct’s crime rate was much lower statistically than in reality.
230.
Further, defendant MAURIELLO also commanded officers to increase their
“activity” and meet their quotas, instructing them on how to take people into custody illegally
and without probable cause.
231.
Additionally, as evidence of these directives, Sgt. Raymond Stukes and
Officer Hector Tirado of the 81st 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 sell bootleg cigarettes to two people, when in fact it had
never occurred.
232.
Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff’s aforementioned allegations against
defendant MAURIELLO were confirmed by the internal affairs investigation, absolutely none of
defendant MAURIELLO’s authority or duty was modified in any way.
233.
Other high-ranking defendants in this case have engaged in substantial
misconduct and received little, if any, discipline from the NYPD.
40
For example, prior to the
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 41 of 64
events of October 31, 2009, Defendant MARINO was found to have imposed an illegal quota
when he was the commanding officer of the 75th Precinct and he was not disciplined for that
misconduct and in fact was thereafter promoted to the position he had as the Deputy Chief of
Patrol Borough Brooklyn North at the time of his misconduct in this case.
234.
Indeed, just one month before the events of October 31, 2009 Defendant
MARINO was faced with an internal NYPD trial arising from his illegal use of steroids and
despite these allegations none of defendant MARINO’s authority or duty was modified in any
way.
235.
Similarly, Defendant NELSON has been the subject of NYPD internal
investigations for misconduct and never actually given any meaningful punishment by the NYPD.
236.
Indeed, Defendant NELSON received “leaked” information from IAB about
complaints by members of the service, just like Defendant MAURIELLO obtained “leaked”
information about Officer Schoolcraft’s reports in this case, and Defendant Nelson used that
leaked information, just like Defendant MAURIELLO did, to improperly reprimand or punish a
member of the service for making a complaint, stating specifically “we have friends” at IAB
237.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT sustained,
inter alia, bodily injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment,
humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights.
238.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was caused to suffer physical injuries
to his head, neck, back and arms, was involuntarily confined to Jamaica Hospital Medical Center and
was forced to incur substantial expenses.
239.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing allegation
41
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 42 of 64
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
240.
All of the aforementioned acts of defendants, their agents, servants and
employees, were carried out under the color of state law.
241.
All of the aforementioned acts deprived plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the
First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of
America, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
242.
The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as police or FDNY o r J H M C officers, employees, or agent,
with all the actual and/or apparent authority attendant thereto.
243.
The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual
defendants in their capacities as, police or FDNY or JHMC officers, employees, or agents
pursuant to the customs, usages, practices, procedures, and the rules of the City of New York,
the New York City Police Department, the New York City Fire Department, a n d J H M C ,
all under the supervision of ranking officers, employees, or agents of said departments; and the
acts of JHMC and Defendants Bernier and Isakov were taken under the assumed governmental
authority and responsibility to protect the public, in violation of accepted medical standards and
New York Mental Hygiene Law §9.39.
244.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, engaged in conduct which constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the
respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
245.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
42
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 43 of 64
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
246.
NYPD defendants infringement upon and violation of plaintiff’s rights
protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to harm
plaintiff, and to place a chilling effect upon the exercise of such rights by plaintiff and other
persons as is their right, as provided by the U.S. Constitution and exercise of such rights.
247.
Further, before and after plaintiff’s suspension on October 31, 2009 the NYPD
defendants unconstitutionally imposed these prior restraint on plaintiff’s speech in an effort by
defendants to silence, intimidate, threaten and prevent plaintiff from disclosing the evidence of
corruption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting and documenting to the media and the
public at large.
248.
Additionally, NYPD defendants also seized plaintiff’s personal notes and
other effects regarding his complaints against the 81st precinct in an effort to prevent said
material from being disclosed to anyone and especially members of the news media and victims
of the aforementioned corruption.
249.
Further, defendants involuntarily committed plaintiff to the psychiatric ward
of Jamaica Hospital as an emotionally disturbed person and following his release made
repeated trips hundreds of miles outside of their jurisdiction to his home in upstate New York in
a continued effort to harass and intimidate him in order to prevent his speech from being uttered.
250.
The aforementioned conduct resulted in a chilling effect on plaintiff’s
speech thereby physically preventing his speech from being uttered to the media and public at
large; or alternatively, to ultimately discredit his speech when and if it were to be uttered by
making him appear “emotionally disturbed.”
251.
Moreover, the allegations and evidence of corruption, misconduct and a
fraud upon the public at large, which plaintiff was gathering and preparing to disclose, was
43
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 44 of 64
eventually investigated by the Quality Assurance Division.
252.
Additionally, on June 23, 2010 the allegations of corruption, misconduct
and fraud upon the public in misclassifying, not classifying and falsifying civilian complaints
in order to avoid index crime classification were substantiated by the NYPD Quality
Assurance Division.
253.
Further NYPD defendants’ actions violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right
to speak out as citizen regarding a matter of extreme public concern, which constituted and fraud
on the public and a breach of the public trust – namely widespread corruption, illegal practices
and the manipulation of civilian complaints by the very same individuals sworn to protect the
public at large.
254.
Moreover, following the home invasion of October 31, 2009 at
approximately 9:40 p.m. plaintiff was suspended by the NYPD, thus rendering disclosure of
the evidence of corruption and misconduct within the police department not pursuant to any
function as a police officer but purely as a citizen regarding matters of public concern.
255.
All of the actions taken by defendants following plaintiff’s suspension were
directly in violation of his rights as secured by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
256.
Moreover the actions taken by NYPD defendants following plaintiff’s
suspension on October 31, 2009 in continuing to involuntary confine him at JHMC and
relentlessly harassing, threatening and intimidating him at his new home in upstate New York
violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right as he was continuing to attempt to disclose
information to the public at large that the largest Police Department in the United States had
committed serious and continuous breaches of the public trust.
257.
NYPD defendants continued to attempt to impose this prior restraint on
44
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 45 of 64
plaintiff’s speech in an effort to silence, intimidate, threaten and prevent plaintiff from disclosing
the evidence of corruption and misconduct plaintiff had been collecting and documenting to
the media and the public at large.
258.
NYPD defendant’s aforementioned conduct was not authorized by law and
instead constituted a continued attempt to restrain plaintiff’s speech from ever being uttered,
which is presumptively unconstitutional.
259.
Further, NYPD defendants’ actions continued to deprive plaintiff’s First
Amendment right to speak out as citizen regarding a matter of extreme public concern, namely
widespread corruption and illegal practices by the very same individuals sworn to protect the
public at large.
260.
As such, NYPD defendants conduct was in direct violation of plaintiff’s right
to freedom of speech as secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
261.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, was humiliated, subjected to
handcuffing, and other physical restraints in an attempt to restrain him from exercising his rights
protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and with the intent to
harm plaintiff, and to place a chilling effect upon the exercise of such rights by plaintiff and other
persons.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FALSE ARREST UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
262.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g allegation
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
263.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was subjected
to illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and taken into custody and caused to
45
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 46 of 64
be falsely imprisoned, detained, and confined, without any probable cause, privilege or consent.
264.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and
subjected to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
265.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
266.
Defendants issued a n d / o r c o m m e n c e d legal process to place
plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT under false arrest and imprisonment and to have him
involuntarily committed to JHMC.
267.
Defendants arrested a n d / o r i n s t i t u t e d l e g a l p r o c e s s plaintiff in order
to obtain collateral objectives outside the legitimate ends of the legal process.
268.
Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain the collateral objective of
preventing plaintiff from appealing his performance evaluation.
269.
Defendants arrested plaintiff in order to obtain the collateral objective of
preventing plaintiff from disclosing the aforementioned evidence of NYPD misconduct and
corruption plaintiff had been collecting and documenting.
270.
Defendants
acted
with
intent
to
do
harm
to
plaintiff
ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT, without excuse or justification.
271.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff’s liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear for his safety, and he was humiliated and subjected
to handcuffing and other physical restraints, without probable cause.
46
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 47 of 64
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
272.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e go i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
273.
The level of force employed by defendants was objectively unreasonable and
in violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.
274.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT sustained,
inter alia, bodily injuries, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment, and
humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FAILURE TO INTERCEDE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
275.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
276.
The defendants had an affirmative duty to intercede when plaintiff’s
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants’ presence by the use of excessive force.
277.
Defendants further violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights when they failed to
intercede and prevent the violation or further violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the
injuries or further injuries caused as a result of said failure.
278.
The defendants had an affirmative duty to intercede when plaintiff’s
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants’ presence by falsifying evidence of
probable cause to arrest plaintiff.
279.
As a result of the defendants’ failure to intercede when plaintiff’s
constitutional rights were being violated in defendants’ presence, plaintiff sustained, inter alia,
physical and emotional injuries.
47
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 48 of 64
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND ENTRY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
280.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
281.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff’s home and
possessions were illegally and improperly entered without, a valid warrant, probable cause,
privilege or consent, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
282.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff’s home
was entered illegally at a time not prescribed in a warrant, in violation of his constitutional rights
as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States.
283.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was not provided a copy of said warrant upon his request, in violation of his
constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
284.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff’s home and
possessions were illegally and improperly searched without any warrant, probable cause,
privilege or consent, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
285.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
48
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 49 of 64
286.
Defendants JMHC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER, unlawfully and
involuntarily confined plaintiff to JHMC for six (6) days without plaintiff’s permission, consent
or any lawful basis for doing so, in violation of his constitutional rights as set forth in the
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
287.
Further, defendants JMHC ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER violated
plaintiffs rights under the New York State Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a) when they failed to
perform the proper and necessary tests to determine that plaintiff was either 1) a “substantial risk
of physical harm to himself as manifested by threats or attempts at suicide or other conduct
demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself” or 2) “a substantial risk of physical harm to other
persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in
reasonable fear of serious physical harm.”
288.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was unlawfully
detained and involuntarily confined 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 United States.
289.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff was deprived
of his substantive and procedural due process rights, as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
290.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to hospital
treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
49
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 50 of 64
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR
RELIEF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
291.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation as if the same were more fully set forth at length herein.
292.
Defendants conspired and acted in concert to do whatever was necessary,
lawful or not, to cause the arrest, imprisonment, and involuntary confinement of plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT.
293.
Throughout the period of the conspiracy, the defendants pursued their
objectives with actual malice toward plaintiff, with utter and deliberate indifference to and
disregard for plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States, without
probable or reasonable cause to believe plaintiff committed any crime or any other lawful basis for
doing so.
294.
Pursuant to the conspiracy, the conspirators, and their employees, agents and
servants, intentionally, recklessly, negligently, and/or with complete indifference to the rights of
plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT: (a) manufactured false evidence and destroyed evidence;
(b) unlawfully entered plaintiff’s home; (c) illegally seized plaintiff’s property; (d) verbally and
physically threatened plaintiff in an attempt to silence him; (e) stalked and menaced plaintiff
at his home; and (b) pressured, bribed, coerced and induced individuals to have plaintiff
involuntarily confined to hospital treatment without his consent or any other lawful basis for
doing so.
295.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to hospital
treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
50
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 51 of 64
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER 42
U.S.C. § 1983
296.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
297.
Despite the fact that defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER
had no objective information whatsoever to believe that plaintiff was a danger to himself or
anyone else, plaintiff was involuntarily hospitalized and remained there for six (6) days.
298.
Defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER never made any
determination – as is required by the Constitution – that that plaintiff was a danger to himself or
anyone else, and forcibly restrained Plaintiff and permitted forcibly restraints without considering
less restrictive alternatives even though no emergency existed and Plaintiff was not dangerous to
himself or others, in violation of Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process rights.
299.
Further, any such determination by defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and
ALDANA- BERNIER that that plaintiff was a danger to himself or anyone else was not
made with any objective criteria or any reasonable degree of accuracy.
300.
Defendants JHMC, ISAKOV and ALDANA-BERNIER, unlawfully and
involuntarily confined plaintiff to JHMC for six (6) days without plaintiff’s permission, consent
or any lawful basis for doing so, without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and without any
opportunity to confront adverse witnesses or present evidence on his own behalf, in violation of
his constitutional rights as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States.
301.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by the defendants, plaintiff was deprived
of his substantive and procedural due process rights, as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
51
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 52 of 64
302.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental constitutional rights, was publicly embarrassed and
humiliated, was caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to hospital
treatment and was forced to incur substantial expenses.
303.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff was deprived of
his liberty and involuntarily confined for six (6) days at JHMC in violation of his substantive
and procedural due process rights as set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
304.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
305.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, engaged in conduct that constituted a custom, usage, practice, procedure or rule of the
respective municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.
306.
The aforementioned customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules
of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department included, but were not
limited to:
i.
Creating a quotas system for NYPD subordinate officers requiring the officers
to issue a certain number of stops, arresting, or summonses per month and
year regardless of reasonable suspicion, or probable cause;
ii.
Creating a policy of awarding incentives to officers who meet or exceed the
required number of stops, arresting, or summonses according to NYPD’s
quota;
iii.
Creating a policy of punishing officers who fail to meet the required number
of stops, arrests, or summonses established by NYPD’s quota;
iv.
Intimidating and threatening police officers with retaliation when said police
52
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 53 of 64
officers challenge unlawful NYPD quota policies;
v.
Intimidating and threatening police officers with retaliation when said police
officers attempt to disclose instances of NYPD corruption and police
misconduct, fraud and breaches of the public trust;
vi.
Retaliating against police officers with suspensions and disciplinary hearings
who disclose or attempt to disclose NYPD corruption and police misconduct;
vii.
Displaying a deliberate indifference to disciplining supervisors, despite
allegations of illegal and/or unconstitutional conduct; and
viii.
Intentionally “leaking” officers IAB complaints – which IAB is duty bound to
keep confidential – for purposes of alerting NYPD personnel and other
supervisory officers, whom are the subject of the complaints, in an ongoing
effort to discourage future IAB complaints and/or silence those in existence.
307.
The existence of the aforesaid unconstitutional customs and policies may
be inferred from repeated occurrences of similar wrongful conduct as has been recently
publicized in the matters of Police Officer’s Adhyl Polanco and Frank Pallestro.
308.
The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of
the City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the moving force behind
the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein.
309.
Additionally, the NYPD’s deliberate indifference to proper training,
supervising and/or disciplining of policy making officials such as defendants MARINO,
NELSON and MAURIELLO constituted explicit and/or tacit approval of their illegal and
unconstitutional conduct.
310.
Further, the NYPD’s deliberate indifference to proper training and supervision
of the Internal Affairs Bureau regarding maintaining the confidentiality of complainants
constitutes implicit and/or tacit approval of illegal and unconstitutional conduct thereby
discouraging the disclosure of illegal and unconstitutional acts in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
53
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 54 of 64
311.
As a result of the foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures
and rules of the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, plaintiff
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was subjected to unlawful and excessive force resulting in
permanent and disabling injuries.
312.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, were directly and actively involved in violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
313.
Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state
law, acquiesced in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by subordinate police officers, and were
directly responsible for the violation of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT’s constitutional
rights.
314.
The acts complained were a direct and proximate result of the usages,
practices, procedures and rules of the City of New York, the New York City Police Department,
and JHMC which constituted deliberate indifference to the safety, well-being and constitutional
rights of plaintiff.
315.
The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of
the City of New York and the New York City Police Department were the direct and
proximate cause of the constitutional violations suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein.
i.
Not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law;
ii.
To be free from seizure of liberty and arrest not based upon probable cause;
iii.
Not to have excessive force imposed upon him;
iv.
Not to have summary punishment imposed upon him;
v.
To receive equal protection under the law; and
vi.
Not to be deprived of his right to free speech.
54
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 55 of 64
PENDENT STATE CLAIMS
316.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every foregoing allegation
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
317.
On or about January 27, 2010, and within (90) days after the claim herein
accrued, the plaintiff duly served upon, presented to and filed with defendant THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, a Notice of Claim setting forth all facts and information required under the
General Municipal Law § 50 (e).
318.
Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has wholly neglected or refused to
make an adjustment or payment thereof and more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the
presentation of such claim as aforesaid.
319.
Upon information and belief, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK has not
yet demanded a hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h.
320.
This action was commenced within one (1) year and ninety (90) days after
the cause of action herein accrued.
321.
Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to maintaining the
instant action.
322.
This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as outlined in C.P.L.R.
§ 1602.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW: ASSAULT
323.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e go i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
324.
Defendants’ aforementioned actions placed plaintiff in apprehension of
imminent harmful and offensive bodily contact.
55
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 56 of 64
325.
As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and
mental anguish, together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment, and humiliation.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW: BATTERY
326.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e go i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
327.
Defendant police officers assaulted plaintiff in a harmful and offensive manner.
328.
Defendant police officers did so without privilege or consent from plaintiff.
329.
As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical pain and
mental anguish, together with shock, fright, apprehension, embarrassment and humiliation.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW: FALSE ARREST
330.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
331.
Defendants arrested plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT in the absence of
probable cause and without a warrant.
332.
As a result of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT was subjected to an illegal, improper and false arrest by the defendants and
taken into custody and caused to be falsely imprisoned, detained, confined, incarcerated and by
the defendants.
The aforesaid actions by the defendants constituted a deprivation of the
plaintiff’s rights.
333.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and humiliated, was
caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to hospital treatment, was
forced to incur substantial expenses and had his personal and professional reputation destroyed.
56
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 57 of 64
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
334.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
335.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was falsely
imprisoned, his liberty was restricted for an extended period of time, was put in fear for his
safety, was humiliated and subjected to handcuffing, and other physical restraints.
336.
Plaintiff was conscious of said confinement and did not consent to said
confinement.
337.
The confinement of plaintiff was without probable cause and was not
otherwise privileged.
338.
As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff has suffered physical
and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and loss of freedom.
339.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and humiliated, was
caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to Jamaica Hospital
Medical Center, was forced to incur substantial expenses and had his personal and professional
reputation destroyed.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW: INTENTIONAL
INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
340.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
341.
The aforementioned conduct was extreme and outrageous, and exceeded all
reasonable bounds of decency.
57
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 58 of 64
342.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting
within the scope of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
343.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting in
furtherance of their employment by defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
344.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting
within the scope of their employment by defendant JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER.
345.
The aforementioned conduct was committed by defendants while acting in
furtherance of their employment by defendant JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER.
346.
The aforementioned conduct was intentional and done for the sole purpose
of causing severe emotional distress to plaintiff.
347.
As a result of the aforementioned conduct, plaintiff suffered severe emotional
distress, physical and mental injury, together with embarrassment, humiliation, shock, fright and
loss of freedom.
348.
As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT was deprived
of his liberty, was denied fundamental rights, was publicly embarrassed and humiliated, was
caused to suffer severe emotional distress, was involuntarily confined to
Jamaica Hospital
Medical Center, was forced to incur substantial expenses and had his professional reputation
destroyed.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW:
NEGLIGENT HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISION/RETENTION
(Defendant City of New York)
349.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
Negligent Retention and Supervision of Defendant Marino
350.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that defendant Marino was
58
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 59 of 64
wholly unfit for duty as Assistant Chief of Patrol Borough Brooklyn North charged with the
responsibility of overseeing all the precincts in Kings County.
351.
Specifically, the CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice of the fact that Marino
had violent propensities and an explosive temperament which would and did result in numerous
instances of excessive force and physical altercations.
352.
CHIEF MARINO was found to be directly responsible for violating New York
State Labor Law in 2006 by implementing an unlawful quota policy in the 75th Precinct.
353.
Following that finding, the CITY OF NEW YORK not only failed to
discipline him but in fact promoted him from the commanding officer of the 75th Precinct to
Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North.
354.
As a result of the foregoing acts of unlawful conduct and/or grossly
improper behavior by defendant MARINO, defendant City of New York knew, or should have
known, that defendant MARINO was wholly unfit for any of position of command, much less
Assistant Borough Chief.
355.
Notwithstanding defendant Marino’s history of unlawful and improper
conduct, however, defendant CITY OF NEW YORK failed to take proper disciplinary action
against CHIEF MARINO, and failed to otherwise modify or limit defendant Marino’s
responsibilities or position of command.
356.
To the contrary, the NYPD actually rewarded defendant Marino for his
misconduct by promoting him to Assistant Borough Chief Brooklyn North – which includes the
81st Precinct – leading directly to the events which took place on October 31, 2009.
357.
Defendants’ negligent retention and supervision of defendant Marino was
the direct and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by plaintiff on October 31, 2009 and
thereafter.
59
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 60 of 64
358.
As a result of the foregoing negligent acts and omissions by defendant CITY
OF NEW YORK, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT has suffered physical and mental injury,
pain and trauma, together with embarrassment, humiliation shock, fright, and loss of freedom.
359.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned
and supervised all members of said its Police Department, including the defendants individually
named above.
360.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it
selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its Police Department
including the defendants individually named above.
361.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was negligent and careless when it
repeatedly failed to act and/or discipline supervisory personnel in the face of obvious evidence of
corruption and misconduct.
Negligence in Failing to Keep IAB Complaints Confidential
362.
Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was further negligent and careless when it
repeatedly allowed allegedly confidential IAB complaints regarding supervisory personnel to be
“leaked” to the very same officials of who were the subjects of the complaints.
363.
Additionally defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that IAB was
failing to keep complaints of corruption and illegality confidential due to a similar “leak” in the
42nd Precinct regarding allegations of illegality which occurred in September, 2009 involving
P.O. Frank Pallestro.
364.
Further defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was on notice that IAB was failing
to keep complaints of corruption and illegality confidential due to a similar “leak” in the 42nd
Precinct regarding allegations of illegality involving P.O. Adhyl Polanco.
60
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 61 of 64
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
365.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
366.
That JHMC, its agents, officials, doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants,
servants, employees, and/or independent contractors, including, but not limited to, DR. ISAK
ISAKOV, and DR. LILIAN ALDANA-BERNIER, jointly and severally, and individually,
departed from good and accepted standards of medical care, and were negligent and careless in
the service rendered for and on behalf of plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT, in failing to
timely diagnose and render proper treatment to plaintiff; in failing to recognize that he was not
emotionally disturbed and in need of involuntary confinement; in improperly and negligently
documenting plaintiff’s medical conditions on his chart on the basis of unsubstantiated hearsay;
in failing to properly interpret the diagnostic tests that were performed; in failing to call for or
request necessary additional diagnostic tests and studies; in failing to properly and timely obtain
consults; in failing to hire a competent and efficient staff; in negligently hiring, retaining,
supervising and controlling staff, doctors, nurses and other personnel; in forming a diagnosis
solely based on non-medical professionals and/or staff’s non expert and unprofessional lay
opinion.
367.
That
the
defendants herein,
their agents,
officials,
doctors,
nurses,
physician’s assistants, servants and employees were further negligent and careless and violated
accepted medical practices, medical customs and medical standards in that defendants, jointly
and/or severally, failed to have an adequate, competent and/or sufficient nursing staff and/or
other personnel to properly diagnose plaintiff which would have ensured his prompt and
immediate release under the foreseeable circumstances; failed to have proper supervision of
61
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 62 of 64
hospital-employed and/or affiliated physicians; failed to conform to the Joint Commission of
Accreditation of Hospitals insofar as the making and/or keeping of hospital records; in failed to
promulgate and/or enforce rules, regulations and guidelines as to proper psychiatric care; and
failed to timely and/or properly carry out orders.
368.
That as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants
herein, plaintiff was caused to and did sustain the severe consequence of being involuntarily
confined against his will for six days, when there was no medical or professional basis to do so.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER N.Y. STATE LAW:
NEGLIGENT HIRING/TRAINING/SUPERVISION/RETENTION
(Defendant JHMC)
369.
Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every f o r e g o i n g
allegation with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
370.
Defendant JHMC selected, hired, trained, retained, assigned and supervised
all members of its staff, including the defendants individually named above.
371.
Defendant JHMC was negligent and careless when it selected, hired, trained,
retained, assigned, and supervised all members of its staff including the defendants individually
named above.
372.
Due to the negligence of the defendants as set forth above, plaintiff
suffered physical and mental injury, pain and trauma, together with embarrassment, humiliation
shock, fright, and loss of freedom.
373.
By reason of the aforesaid conduct by defendants, plaintiff ADRIAN
SCHOOLCRAFT requests the following relief:
A.
Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
B.
Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
62
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 63 of 64
C.
Declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff and against each of the defendants,
finding that the defendants’ conduct was unlawful, including without limitation,
findings that the claims for relief have been established; that the practices and
policies of the NYPD on quotas for stops, summons and arrests and the
manipulation and downgrading of crime reports are unlawful; that the practices and
policies for falsification of training records are unlawful; and that the NYPD and
JHMC records should be expunged to the extent that those records suggest that
plaintiff is (or or ever was) emotional disturbed, or suffering from a mental illness
or dangerous to himself or others.
D.
An award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as well as
costs and disbursements; and
E.
Any further relief as the Court may find just and proper.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT demands judgment in an amount
to be determined at trial for compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaratory judgment
in his favor and against the defendants, attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements of this
action.
Dated: New York, New York
January 22, 2014
BY:
BY:
63
/S
NATHANIEL B. SMITH
Attorney for Plaintiff
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
(212) 227-7062
natbsmith@gmail.com
/S
JOHN D. LENOIR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
(212) 227-7062
john.lenoir@gmail.com
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 341 Filed 01/23/15 Page 64 of 64
64
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?