Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 387

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 305 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117 in his official capacity), Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117, Individually). (Kretz, Walter)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-against10-CV-06005 (RWS)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
DEPUTY INSPECTOR STEVEN MAURIELLO’S MEMORANDUM
IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SEEKING DISMISSAL OF MAURIELLO’S COUNTERCLAIMS
Preliminary Statement
Defendant Steven Mauriello submits this memorandum in
opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which seeks dismissal of
Mauriello’s counterclaims and “a judicial determination as a matter of law that the
NYPD defendants’ warrantless entr[ies] into . . . Schoolcraft’s home violated the
Fourth Amendment” and were otherwise unjustified (Memorandum in Support of
Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion, page1). (The other relief sought by
plaintiff’s motion does not relate to Mauriello.) We address in this memorandum
plaintiff’s attempt to have the counterclaims dismissed.1 See Point I, infra.
We have responded at length and in great detail to Schoolcraft’s
Statement of Material Facts in support of his motion to dismiss the counterclaims,
and respectfully refer the Court to those responses for a more thorough

1

With respect to the two entries into plaintiff’s apartment, Mauriello only was in the apartment for
the first three minutes of the first entry, and has moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of the Fourth Amendment claim as it relates to him. On that issue, we rely on the discussion in
our papers submitted in support of Mauriello’s motion. See Point II, infra.

understanding of the underlying facts genuinely in dispute. We discuss below
some of the facts more directly pertinent to the issues raised in Schoolcraft’s
motion, which should be denied in its entirety as it relates to Mauriello.
MAURIELLO’S COUNTERCLAIMS
The counterclaims seek recovery from Schoolcraft for the damage
suffered by Mauriello as a result of Schoolcraft’s tortious interference with
Mauriello’s employment relationship with the NYPD, and as a result of
Schoolcraft’s prima facie tort, willfully and maliciously engaging in conduct whose
sole purpose was to damage Mauriello’s career and reputation. (See
Counterclaims in Mauriello’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
Docket Entry 231.)) In particular, as a result of Schoolcraft’s wrongful conduct, in
July 2010, Mauriello was transferred out of the 81st Precinct, where he had been
the Commanding Officer in the rank of Deputy Inspector, and was assigned to
the Bronx and Queens Transit Division as the Executive Officer. Not long after, a
Captain working with the NYPD Advocate’s Office in its effort to address
Schoolcraft’s status with the Department, publicly referred to Mauriello’s new
assignment as “a dead-end job.” (See SM Response to paragraph 125 of
Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts in support of his motion (PSMF) and ¶ 28
of Defendant Mauriello’s Additional Material Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
motion (Mauriello AMF.))
Mauriello has remained in that position for nearly five years without
promotion or even consideration for promotion above the rank of Deputy
Inspector, and without the salary increase that would accompany such a

2

promotion, thus depriving him of recognition for his performance on the job and
the attendant salary increase (see SM Response 118 to PSMF).
Thus, while Schoolcraft failed to get Mauriello fired, as he had
hoped (see SM Responses 2, 4, 36-42, 54, 121-125 to PSMF and Mauriello AMF
¶ 1-7, 16, 19), he managed to derail Mauriello’s career and to have him publicly
maligned in the process (see SM Responses 115, 118, 121, 123, 125 to PSMF
and Mauriello AMF ¶ 19). We believe that by his deceitful acts Schoolcraft also
was hoping to lay a foundation for frivolous claims that might reap him an
undeserved recovery (see SM Responses 2, 5, 18, 22, 25, 36, 37, 39, 42, 54-60,
73, 87 to PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶ 1-9 and 16-20). That he would pursue
such frivolous claims based upon the same deceit by which he sought to harm
Mauriello does not serve as a basis for dismissing Mauriello’s counterclaims, as
we discuss below. Instead, it demonstrates the outrageous conduct in which
Schoolcraft was willing to engage, with his father’s urging, to achieve unjust
results. (See Point I, infra.)
Schoolcraft’s Recordings Reveal His
Intent To Get Revenge Against Mauriello
This is a rare case in which we have direct evidence of a plaintiff’s
explicit desire and intent to tell lies for the specific purpose of causing the
defendant harm in his employment (see SM Responses 2, 42, 123 to PSMF and
Mauriello AMF ¶ 1-3). For example, Schoolcraft’s recording of his October 7,
2009, telephone conversation with his father, Larry Schoolcraft, while Schoolcraft
was on his way to his first and only meeting with members of the NYPD Quality
Assurance Division (QAD), reveals their plan to have Schoolcraft falsely
complain to QAD of “chronic and systemic” downgrading of crime at the 81st
3

Precinct and to do so for the sake of getting revenge against Mauriello – the
expressed goal being to “fuck [Mauriello] over.” (See SM Responses 2 and 42 to
PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶ 1-7.) This sentiment was repeated by Schoolcraft on
the morning of October 31, 2009, when he said to another officer that “that’s your
buddy Mauriello. That fat miserable fuck. If I could get him… if I could get him. I
would sell him out faster than anything, for free. I would give him away for free.”
(See Mauriello AMF ¶ 3.)
Another example of Schoolcraft dishonestly orchestrating events to
cause Mauriello harm is one of the telephone conversations Schoolcraft had with
his father from his apartment on the afternoon of October 31, 2009. They are
heard talking about how Larry Schoolcraft told something to someone he refers
to as Shakey of Shady, which he had expected to provoke an unspecified
reaction by the NYPD (see Mauriello AMF ¶ 29). Apparently, if anything
Schoolcraft and his father are heard to say can possibly be believed, and, in this
case, understood, the thought was that the person Larry Schoolcraft spoke to
would have told others and by 4:40 in the afternoon that would have triggered
some unspecified action by the NYPD. (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 29.)
The plan apparently failed and Schoolcraft and his father were
discussing other ways to initiate engagement with the NYPD personnel waiting
outside Schoolcraft’s home. (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 29.) As IAB later concluded,
Schoolcraft and his father were orchestrating the events of October 31, 2009,
and, as the recordings have since revealed, the goal was to get revenge against
Mauriello. (See SM Exhibit C; SM responses to 54-60, 71-73, 83, 87, 91;
Mauriello AMF ¶ 29-30.)
4

Part of Schoolcraft’s deceitful presentation to QAD on October 7,
2009, which was preserved on his recording (SM Ex. BR), was not revealing he
had intentionally contributed to the incidence of improper crime reporting to try to
make it appear to QAD there was rampant, purposeful wrongdoing at the 81st
Precinct. (See SM Responses 125 to PSMF and Mauriello’s AMF ¶ 18.)
Schoolcraft played a direct role in causing at least three incidents of grand
larceny and burglary, reported directly to him, to be recorded instead as lost
property, and in causing at least three other incidents of crime not to be recorded
at all. (See SM Exhibit DD.) In other words, Schoolcraft reported thirteen
incidents of improper crime reporting for the entire precinct over a period of a
year or more, while he alone was responsible for six such incidents over a similar
period. A subsequent investigation by QAD revealed that many of these
incidents reported by Schoolcraft were not the result of improper crime reporting
at the 81st Precinct. (See SM Exhibit CK.)
Plaintiff dishonestly reported to QAD that the eleven instances he
identified where a crime report was improperly downgraded, several of which he
had a direct hand in, plus two additional incidents reported in the press and
attributed to plaintiff, were only a small sample of such downgrading in the 81st
Precinct, when, in fact, Schoolcraft did not know of any other instances, and
actually knew or should have known that incorrect crime reporting only rarely
occurred in the 81st Precinct. (See SM Responses 42 and 129 to PSMF.)
Indeed, it was later independently determined, after a thorough scrutiny of the
81st Precinct’s records triggered by Schoolcraft’s allegations, that of more than
1100 crime reports prepared in the 81st Precinct over a period of approximately
5

ten months, only approximately two percent had been incorrectly classified – a
total of 23, which was consistent with the City-wide average, and thus far better
than several other precincts throughout the City. (See SM Response 129 to
PSMF.) When you eliminate the misclassified complaints for which Schoolcraft
was responsible, the error rate is reduced to 1.4% -- a better performance than
found by QAD in its routine semi-annual audit of 81st Precinct complaint reports
completed in the summer of 2009. (See SM Response 129 to PSMF.)
In furtherance of his deceit of QAD, Schoolcraft also did not reveal
that he had recorded countless hours of conversation at the 81st Precinct for a
period of at least 18 months and possibly as long as three years or more, and
that the recordings did not provide any support for plaintiff’s accusations of
improper crime reporting. There is nothing to suggest a “chronic” or “systemic” or
“rampant” practice to misclassify crime or to pressure officers to downgrade
crime, as Schoolcraft alleged. In fact, despite the several instances of
misclassifying crime in which Schoolcraft was involved, and the many
conversations he supposedly had about those complaints and the complaints
involving other officers, there are no related recordings, and he cites none. (See
SM Responses 42 to PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶ 6.)
To enhance Schoolcraft’s presentation to QAD, Schoolcraft and his
father also discussed that Schoolcraft should, and he ultimately did, deceive
QAD about his motives by falsely explaining to QAD he had taken it upon himself
to gather information about purported wrongdoing in the NYPD because he was
concerned about the safety of the people in the community as well as the safety

6

of police officers. Emphasized in their conversation was that Schoolcraft should
not let QAD know he was out to get “revenge”. (See SM Response 42 to PSMF.)
In fact, Schoolcraft was out to get revenge, and he had no concern
for his fellow officers or the people of the community. (See SM Responses 2 to
PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶ 1-16.) Schoolcraft reveals while speaking to his
father that “ain’t nobody my friend” in the NYPD, and if any fellow officers in the
NYPD were to suffer any consequences as a result of what he intended to report
to QAD, “they asked for it” because “none of these guys came to my aid when
[the NYPD was] coming at me.” (See SM Response 2 to PSMF and Mauriello
AMF ¶ 10.)
Schoolcraft also expressed to his father an even more stark
contradiction of the sentiments he planned to express and did falsely express to
QAD about his purported concern for the predominantly minority community
served by the 81st precinct. In response to an inaudible question from his father,
apparently about whether one or more officers with whom Schoolcraft had
worked would be supportive of him, Schoolcraft told his father the other officers
and he “just worked together so we wouldn’t have to work with any n________
[African Americans].” ( Mauriello AMF ¶ 13.) Similar sentiments regarding many
different types of people are regularly expressed by Schoolcraft throughout his
recordings. (See Mauriello AMF ¶¶ 11, 14 and 15.)
Thus, Schoolcraft held himself out to QAD and all others, including
IAB, members of the press, and the public generally, under extremely false
pretenses for the purpose not of protecting his fellow officers or the rights of the
residents of the Bedford Stuyvesant community, and his recordings help clearly
7

demonstrate his true sentiments. His purpose was to get “revenge” against
Mauriello for his poor evaluation and for having him placed and kept on restricted
duty. With the apparent guidance of his father, Schoolcraft opted to interfere in
Mauriello’s employment relationship with the NYPD, and to otherwise try to
destroy Mauriello’s career and reputation – while also creating false support for a
lawsuit he planned to bring against the NYPD. (See SM Response 2 and 123 to
PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶ 2.)
With respect to Schoolcraft’s false accusations that illegal quotas
were imposed by Mauriello and that Schoolcraft’s failure to comply with them was
the basis for his sub-standard evaluation, Schoolcraft, again, had surreptitiously
recorded roll calls and other conversations in the 81st Precinct for perhaps three
years or longer. He also secretly recorded the meetings he requested with his
union delegate and his supervising officers from the 81st Precinct with respect to
his appeal of his 2008 evaluation. Yet, there is no evidence that unlawful quotas
actually were imposed on Schoolcraft or anyone else or played any part in
Schoolcraft’s evaluation. (See SM Responses 4, 8, 10 and Mauriello AMF ¶ 19.)
The accusations are false and were maliciously made by Schoolcraft, and
continue to be made by him, to cause Mauriello undeserved harm and to again
provide Schoolcraft with false support for his unfounded claims. (See Mauriello
Counterclaim ¶ 8.)
Despite the performance of the 81st Precinct with respect to the
classification of crimes, the precinct and especially Mauriello were singled out for
ridicule in some media due to Schoolcraft’s unfounded and exaggerated criticism,
his manipulation of the records, the bizarre events of October 31, 2009, and the
8

sensationalized and apparently selective release of Schoolcraft’s roll call
recordings. (See SM Exhibit DC.) In the end, Mauriello suffered the
consequence of a transfer out of the 81st Precinct, and the loss of any
consideration for promotion or transfer. (See SM Responses 115-122 to PSMF.)
Mauriello’s Brief Entry Into Schoolcraft’s Apartment
Steven Mauriello had de minimus involvement in the events of
October 31, 2009, which are the principal subject of Schoolcraft’s complaint, and
did not engage in any of the alleged wrongdoing in Schoolcraft’s apartment,
having been present only briefly. (See paragraphs 45-96 of Mauriello’s
Statement of Material Facts in support of his motion for summary judgment.)
Yet, Schoolcraft has named Mauriello as a defendant in furtherance of
Schoolcraft’s revenge against Mauriello. In doing so, Schoolcraft also is trying to
taint the NYPD’s actions on October 31, 2009, as being motivated by Mauriello’s
purported desire to retaliate against Schoolcraft for communicating with QAD and
IAB. (See SM Responses 37-49 to PSMF.) It is a hollow charge, and at best,
the material facts are genuinely in dispute.
As we discuss at length in our memorandum in support of
Mauriello’s motion for summary judgment, there is no evidence anyone acted out
of a desire to retaliate against Schoolcraft on October 31, 2009. Instead, they
acted out of a desire to prevent Schoolcraft from doing harm to himself and
others (see SM responses 69, 70, 72, 79-80 to PSMF.) The evidence shows that
Schoolcraft’s conduct on October 31, 2009, much of it revealed by his
surreptitious recordings, was designed to provoke a response by the NYPD that
Schoolcraft hoped to be able to point to as an act of retaliation by Mauriello that
9

would cost him his job, while also providing Schoolcraft support in the frivolous
lawsuit he had already planned to bring against the NYPD. (See SM Responses
2, 87, 123 and Mauriello AMF ¶ 29.) It was a sinister, cynical and malicious effort
by Schoolcraft for which he should be held accountable and not be rewarded.
Mauriello’s Harm Caused By Schoolcraft
More importantly, for purposes of this discussion, as a result of
Schoolcraft’s wrongful conduct, Mauriello has suffered damage to his career and
reputation; his employment relationship with the NYPD has suffered; he has not
even been considered for a promotion for more than six years; he will continue to
suffer loss of income and other financial losses in the future; he has
undeservedly suffered public humiliation and scorn; and he has been caused to
suffer a prolonged period of emotional distress. (See Mauriello’s AMF ¶¶ 19 and
23-28, and Mauriello Affidavit in Opposition ¶ 8.) Schoolcraft’s deceitful conduct
– toward QAD, IAB, his fellow officers, his supervisors, his Commanding Officer,
and the borough commanders and their staff -- represents such a high degree of
immorality and such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference by him
to his civil obligations.
In addition, when the NYPD, FDNY and EMT personnel who
responded to Schoolcraft’s apartment should have been attending to their law
enforcement and emergency service obligations to the public, they instead were
being drawn into Schoolcraft’s selfish, deceitful scheme by their fear Schoolcraft
might be at risk of hurting himself, which also could have resulted in harm to
others. Schoolcraft was acting with the intent to do harm to Mauriello, and in

10

doing so demonstrated a conscious indifference and utter disregard not only for
Mauriello, but also those who came to Schoolcraft’s aid and the public generally.
Material Facts Genuinely In Dispute
Thus, the most significant material facts genuinely in dispute for
purposes of Schoolcraft’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
Mauriello’s counterclaims include: 1) Did Schoolcraft use wrongful means
sufficient to constitute tortious interference with Mauriello’s employment
relationship with the NYPD? 2) Alternatively, was the sole purpose of
Schoolcraft’s communications with QAD, IAB and later the media (in connection
with the release of his recordings), to cause harm to Mauriello’s relationship with
the NYPD? And, 3) Has Mauriello’s employment relationship with the NYPD
been damaged as a result of Schoolcraft’s conduct?
Summary of Argument
At a minimum, there is a question of fact as to 1) whether
Schoolcraft engaged in wrongful means to harm Mauriello that constituted
tortious interference with Mauriello’s employment relationship with the NYPD; 2)
whether, in the alternative, Schoolcraft’s sole purpose was to harm Mauriello’s
relationship with the NYPD; and 3) whether Mauriello has suffered harm in his
relationship with the NYPD caused by Schoolcraft’s conduct.

11

ARGUMENT
POINT I
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING MAURIELLO’S
COUNTERCLAIMS IS NOT WARRANTED
A.

1.

Mauriello’s Claim For Tortious Interference
With His Employment Relationship With
The NYPD Can Only Be Resolved At Trial
The Elements of a Tortious Interference Claim
Plaintiff has correctly recited the elements of a tortious interference

claim, as set forth by the New York State Court of Appeals in Posner v. Lewis, 18
N.Y.3d 566, 570 n.2 (2012) (quoting Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182, 190
(2004)) – an employment relationship between Mauriello and the NYPD,
interference by Schoolcraft with that relationship, and either interference for the
sole purpose of damaging that relationship or the use of “wrongful means” to
interfere with the relationship, even if it was not the sole purpose to do so. These
elements are readily satisfied by the evidence, and certainly, at a minimum, there
are genuine issues of material fact that bear on whether the claim ultimately
should be sustained.
Schoolcraft would have this Court conclude it is beyond dispute i)
he did not interfere in Mauriello’s employment relationship with the NYPD
because the interference was not “direct” and did not affect any “specific”
employment opportunity; ii) he did not interfere for the sole purpose of causing
Mauriello harm; and iii) even if one of Schoolcraft’s purposes was to cause
Mauriello harm, he did not engage in wrongful means to do so.
We do not understand what could be more “direct” than making
falsified claims of wrongdoing to QAD and IAB, while misclassifying crimes on
12

complaint reports to buttress those claims; in any event, the reference to direct
interference is from opinions relating to competition in the marketplace and thus
has no bearing here. See Carvel, 3 N.Y.3d at 197 n.3. We also do not
understand Schoolcraft’s claim that no “specific” employment opportunity has
been identified. Quite simply, Steven Mauriello was a Deputy Inspector when
Schoolcraft engaged in his wrongful conduct, and Mauriello remains a Deputy
Inspector more than five years later. We will demonstrate at trial that Mauriello
would have been considered for promotion, and no doubt would have been
promoted, to Inspector, with the corresponding salary increase, had Schoolcraft
not interfered for the sake of getting revenge. (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 23-28.)
Frankly, we believe nothing more need be said on these subjects in opposing
plaintiff’s motion to have the counterclaims dismissed.
We do discuss at greater length Schoolcraft’s interference by
wrongful means and the fact that his sole purpose in interfering was to get
revenge against Mauriello.
a.

Schoolcraft’s Interference by Wrongful Means

Schoolcraft first complained – falsely -- about illegal quotas and
crime misclassification in early September 2009 in a telephone call to IAB. That
led to his interview by QAD on October 7, 2009. QAD openly recorded the
interview, while it also was being secretly recorded by Schoolcraft. As we have
reported to the Court, Schoolcraft also recorded a lengthy telephone
conversation he had with his father as he was on his way to the meeting with
QAD. IAB retrieved a copy of the October 7, 2009, recording, including the
portion with the conversation between Schoolcraft and his father, when IAB met
13

Schoolcraft at his apartment after his release from Jamaica Hospital on
November 6, 2009. (See SM Statement of Material Facts ¶ 137-138.)2 As
alleged in Mauriello’s counterclaims, in the October 7, 2009, conversation
between Schoolcraft and his father, in the following QAD meeting, and in
subsequent recordings by Schoolcraft, we learn all that we have recited above
regarding Schoolcraft’s intent to get revenge against Mauriello.
In addition, as we have detailed in our response to Plaintiff’s
Statement of Material Facts (PSMF), prior to Schoolcraft’s call to IAB in early
September to complain for the first time about illegal quotas and misclassification
of crime, Schoolcraft’s father had contacted David Durk, a family friend who
Schoolcraft thought of as an uncle. Durk, now deceased, was once with the
NYPD, and apparently is best known for his relationship with Frank Serpico.
Durk contacted Captain Brandon DelPozo, with whom he was acquainted, at IAB
on Schoolcraft’s behalf. Schoolcraft himself then filed a false claim with IAB
regarding the Integrity Control Officer (ICO) and Assistant ICO of the 81st
Precinct, which we now believe was a purposefully indirect criticism of Mauriello
and his administration of the precinct. That complaint and Durk’s call to IAB soon
were followed by the telephone call from Schoolcraft to IAB to falsely accuse
Mauriello not only of imposing quotas on the officers of the 81st Precinct, but also
of engaging in rampant downgrading or misclassification of crime. (See SM Ex.
CR.)
2

In discovery in this case, Schoolcraft’s prior attorneys produced a recording labeled the same as
the October 7, 2009, recording retrieved by IAB, but deleted the portion of the recording
containing the conversation between Schoolcraft and his father, which we discuss above. It is
apparent why they did so. (Compare SM Exhibit CX (edited by Plaintiff) with SM Exhibit BR
(recovered by IAB investigators.))

14

Schoolcraft never appeared for an interview with IAB, but IAB
investigated the complaint against the ICO and the Assistant ICO and found the
complaint unfounded. IAB also investigated the complaint about illegal quotas
being imposed on the officers of the 81st Precinct. (The only quotas that actually
were illegal at the time were quotas for traffic violations.) IAB found there were
no quotas of any kind as there was no evidence that a specific amount of any
kind of police action was required, and there was no evidence of any adverse
consequences suffered by any officer for failing to perform a certain amount of
any kind of police action. (See SM Ex. CR.)
b.

Schoolcraft’s Motive for Interfering -- Revenge
Schoolcraft held himself out to QAD and all others, including IAB,

members of the press, and the public generally, under extremely false pretenses.
The purpose of his actions was not to protect his fellow officers or the rights of
the residents of the Bedford Stuyvesant community. It was to get revenge
against Mauriello.
Schoolcraft’s desire for revenge is tied to events for which he alone,
and certainly not Mauriello, is responsible. Before focusing on those events, it is
important to recognize the nature of the evidence we are evaluating to discern
Schoolcraft’s true intentions. We typically are dealing with circumstantial
evidence occasionally illuminated by statements preserved on Schoolcraft’s
recordings. Of course, since Schoolcraft was the one who knew the events were
being recorded, we often cannot trust what is “revealed.” At times, Schoolcraft
clearly appears to be playing to his ultimate audience, such as when he is trying
to pretend he was menaced by Lieutenant Caughey on the morning of October
15

31, 2009, and trying to get another precinct employee to agree with something he
says about Caughey’s purported menacing.
At other times, Schoolcraft seems to have forgotten he was
recording himself and lets us get a real sense of what actually is happening, such
as when he tells his father over the telephone while in his apartment watching
police personnel gather outside his house – “I feel stupid” and “this is ridiculous,”
as his father coaches him to say he has diarrhea if the police enter his apartment
and want to take him back to the precinct or the hospital. (See Mauriello’s AMF ¶
30.) Chances are, Schoolcraft never expected some of the recordings to be
disclosed, especially the recordings created in the days and weeks before IAB
retrieved them from his apartment on November 6, 2009. His expectation, no
doubt, was that he would have had an opportunity to weed out, or delete, those
recordings or portions of recordings that were not favorable to him in one way or
another, as he appears to have done with many of the earlier recordings.
For example, how is it that Schoolcraft preserved the entire
recording of his day tour from October 31, 2009, but nothing close to the entirety
of any other day tour over a period of 18 months? Is it that he simply never had
a chance to destroy or at least edit that recording? Or could it be that the
recording of his October 31, 2009, day tour actually is the only fully recorded day
tour because that is the day Schoolcraft and his father selected to bring their plan
to fruition? What ever the case may be, that recording as well as other
recordings on that same date when Schoolcraft was in his apartment, including
the recordings of the two entries into his apartment, are very revealing.

16

With that in mind, the first event that appears to have triggered
Schoolcraft’s desire for revenge, though being entirely of his own doing, is his
poor evaluation (see SM responses 2, 22, 36 to PSMF). Schoolcraft simply did
not do his job, despite ample guidance and encouragement from his supervisors.
His evaluation for 2008 accurately reflected his poor performance – and it was
not based upon Mauriello’s observations, but on the observations of Schoolcraft’s
supervisors. Mauriello’s role was that of the reviewer, after the year-end
evaluation was completed. He held the required appeal meeting with Schoolcraft
and his supervisors and decided to adopt the supervisors’ rating of Schoolcraft.
Little did Mauriello know what Schoolcraft would do to get revenge.
The second event that (ostensibly) triggered Schoolcraft’s desire to
get revenge against Mauriello was Dr. Lamstein’s decision to place Schoolcraft
on restricted duty. There is no legitimate basis to doubt that Mauriello had
absolutely nothing to do with this. There also is no doubt that Schoolcraft
brought it upon himself. Still, Schoolcraft blames Mauriello. One could ask, did
he bring it upon himself by orchestrating events to get himself placed on
restricted duty, thus enabling him to complain he was being retaliated against?
Or, was he genuinely suffering anxiety, with anger and resentment toward the
job, which caused him to seek out the medical care that ultimately landed him on
restricted duty?
We think it was the latter. And we think he suffered anxiety, with
anger and resentment toward the job, not because of concern for illegal quotas
or misclassification of crime – those were causes he later adopted as a means of
getting revenge. We think he started to develop anxiety, anger and resentment
17

from the time he received his poor evaluation for 2008 continuing through the
time he was placed on restricted duty, and that he then adopted illegal quotas
and misclassification of crime as a means to get revenge. We believe the reason
for the anxiety, anger and resentment was he performed poorly throughout 2008
either purposefully or for a number of personal reasons that simply made him not
care (see SM Response 2 to PSMF).3 In any case, when he got his failing
evaluation, his desire for revenge began to emerge.
In the days that followed the appeal meeting of February 25, 2009,
Schoolcraft was more closely monitored,4 and began to seek medical attention
for anxiety, which ultimately lead to him being placed on restricted duty. (See
Mauriello Statement of Material Facts in Support of his Motion for Summary
Judgment ¶¶ 8 -15.) By the time he was placed on restricted duty, he was on the
path to getting revenge. This, in part, is indicated by the fact that he repeatedly
did things to create the appearance he was pursuing his appeal, when the truth
was he never actually submitted it. He was fully aware he never had submitted it
because he had drafted it, but never finalized it. Still, he repeatedly told people it
was being ignored. (See SM Responses 22, 36 to PSMF and Mauriello AMF ¶
3.)

3

Listening to the recorded conversations of Schoolcraft and his father, you get a glimpse of how their
machinations know no bounds. We allow for the possibility that they hatched a plan in late 2007 and early
2008, when the father was recuperating in Schoolcraft’s apartment, to have Schoolcraft do as little work as
possible to bait Mauriello and his staff to take disciplinary action against him which Schoolcraft then would
challenge in some fashion. All things considered, however, we believe Schoolcraft performed poorly in
2008 for personal reasons, and then developed anxiety, anger and resentment when he received his poor
evaluation.
4

Schoolcraft should have been formally placed on performance monitoring by the Employee Management
Division once he received a 2.5 rating. Instead, he mistakenly was placed on force monitoring, though he
still was properly being more closely monitored by his supervisors in the 81st Precinct. (See SM Exhibit CE
at 3:10-4:00.)

18

Remarkably, Schoolcraft was called down to the Brooklyn North
personnel office in late October because it was receiving calls from a union
attorney for Schoolcraft asking about the status of the appeal. (See SM
Responses 22 and 36 to PSMF.) Schoolcraft was told the appeal was not
addressed because he had never submitted it, and he acknowledged in that
meeting that he had prepared a “rough” draft -- eight months earlier (see SM
Responses 22 and 36 to PSMF) -- but never finalized it and never submitted it.
He was assured by the personnel sergeant he still could submit the appeal if he
wanted it to be addressed (see SM Responses 22 and 36 to PSMF). He did not
do so, and clearly could not have had any real interest in doing so because he
had performed so poorly. His purpose in pretending to be pursuing the appeal,
we believe, and the evidence shows, was that he wanted to be able to continue
to complain that the appeal was being ignored because that would help him get
revenge against Mauriello, as if it were his doing.
Schoolcraft’s desire for revenge also is indicated by his purported
desire to be restored to full duty while failing over a period of six months to follow
the advice of every professional he encountered to see a psychologist. (See SM
Responses 32 and 33 to PSMF.) He was advised by his personal physician on
April 6, 2009, to see a psychologist, but never did so. He then was advised by
Dr. Lamstein on April 14, 2009, to see a psychologist, but never did so. He was
advised by Dr. Lamstein again on July 27, 2009, and then again on October 27,
2009, to see a psychologist, but never did so. He then was advised by Jamaica
Hospital to see a psychologist, as a condition for his release from the hospital,
and he did so once, but never again. He has not even bothered, for purposes of
19

his claims in this case, to see a therapist regularly who might opine with some
degree of validity about the state of his mental health. (Even the two mental
health experts he has retained to testify on his behalf in this case each only
interviewed him once.)
All indications are Schoolcraft wants to create the appearance
Mauriello arranged to have him placed on restricted duty and somehow arranged
to have Schoolcraft kept on restricted duty. He would have it appear that on the
one hand there never has been a basis to question the state of his mental health
– not when he went to a hospital emergency room on his own, not when he went
to see his personal physician, not when he was placed on restricted duty by Dr.
Lamstein, not when he was seen again by Dr. Lamstein in July and October and
was continued on restricted duty, not on the night of October 31, 2009, when he
was EDP’d by Chief Marino, and not during his stay at Jamaica Hospital. On the
other hand, he made no effort to be restored to full duty, though pretending that
is what he wanted (just as he never actually appealed his evaluation, though
pretending to pursue it and blaming Mauriello for arranging to have it ignored).
What Schoolcraft eventually does instead is have his father speak
to David Durk in August 2009, and have his father place calls to the Mayor’s
Office in October 2009, claiming among other things Schoolcraft has no idea why
he is on restricted duty. When Schoolcraft was then called by Dr. Lamstein to
meet with her on October 27, 2009, Dr. Lamstein challenged him on the claim he
was not told why he was on restricted duty and reminded him of the reasons.
Schoolcraft, who recorded the session, expressed no objection and indicated
agreement. Yet, to this day, he has not abandoned the claim.
20

2.

Mauriello’s Tortious Interference Claim
Should Be Tried Before A Jury_______
a. Tortious Interference by Wrongful Means
In Brandt v. Winchell, 3 N.Y.2d 628 (1958), the New York State

Court of Appeals addressed a claim of prima facie tort based upon the acts of the
principal of one charitable fund-raising organization to destroy the reputation of
the principal of a competing organization. The methods used were to 1) prevail
on government officials to investigate the plaintiff, 2) instigate a prosecution of
the plaintiff, which resulted in an acquittal, 3) prevail upon the police department
to cancel the plaintiff’s pistol license, and 4) utter and have published in the
media “false accusations against plaintiff attacking his business and professional
integrity.” Id. at 632. The Court, choosing to “assume that [the] actions [taken]
by the [public] officials [against the plaintiff] were taken for good cause shown”
concluded that “that being so, plaintiff has no cause of action against defendants
in prima facie tort regardless of plaintiff’s motives.” Id. at 636.
In Posner v. Lewis, supra, relied upon by plaintiff, the New York
State Court of Appeals was confronted with claims of prima facie tort and tortious
interference with prospective contract rights by a public school teacher who had
been denied tenure. He was involved in an extra-marital affair with a student’s
parent, whom he also had recommended to serve as a substitute teacher in his
class. This information was brought to the attention of the school board by the
defendants, the father and brother of the plaintiff’s wife. Defendants argued “that
their disclosure of [the plaintiff’s] affair to school officials was a matter of public
interest and that they were immune from liability similar to the defendants in

21

Brandt.” Posner, 18 N.Y.3d at 570. The Court disagreed and allowed the case
to proceed.
The Posner Court, after noting the similarities between Brandt and
the case before it, nonetheless found that “there is a critical distinction between
the two cases.” Id. at 571. In Posner, the “defendants . . . did more than
instigate an inquiry or investigation.” Id. The defendants “attempted to coerce
[plaintiff] into relinquishing his parental rights by offering him money and
threatening to reveal certain information to school authorities to ensure that he
was denied tenure. And when [plaintiff] refused to accede to this demand,
defendants made good on the threat.” Id. The Posner Court concluded that ‘the
absolute privilege articulated in Brandt should not be extended to protect the
course of conduct alleged in this case” because the defendants’ “complaints to
school officials cannot be isolated from th[eir] coercive scheme, which
‘constituted a single and integrated course of conduct’.” Id., quoting Giboney v.
Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). So, too, here.
While Schoolcraft did not engage in coercion, he did engage in a
broad pattern of deceit, the falsification of documents, the telling of extensive lies
to QAD, IAB, and others, and the manipulation of circumstances and the
orchestration of events. Even if his complaints about quotas and the
misclassification of crime had some validity, they cannot be isolated from the
wrongdoing he engaged in to create the unjustified appearance Mauriello’s

22

relationship with the NYPD should be damaged. As in Posner, Schoolcraft’s
behavior constituted a single and integrated course of conduct.5
In Carvel, supra, relied upon by the Posner Court for the elements
of a claim for tortious interference with prospective contract rights, 18 N.Y.3d at
570 n.2, the New York State Court of Appeals quoted from an earlier opinion in
NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 614, 621 (1996), in
pertinent part as follows:
‘where there is an existing enforceable contract and a
defendant’s deliberate interference results in a breach
of that contract, a plaintiff may recover damages for
tortious interference with contractual relations even if
the defendant was engaged in lawful behavior. Where
there has been no breach of an existing contract, but only
interference with prospective contract rights, however,
plaintiff must show more culpable conduct on the part of
the defendant.’
Carvel, 3 N.Y.3d at 189-90. The Court then addressed the meaning of interfering
conduct “more culpable” than interfering behavior that is lawful. The Court,
quoting its earlier opinion in Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp.,
50 N.Y.2d 183, 191 (1980), indicated that section 768 of the Restatement
[Second] of Torts was to be relied upon for its explanation of the “wrongful
means” needed to sustain a claim for tortious interference with prospective
contract rights. Id. at 191. See Scutti Enterprises, LLC v. Park Place
Entertainment Corp., 333 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir. 2003)( “wrongful means” to
sustain a tortious interference with business relations claim does not require

5

Unlike in Brandt, where the Court assumed the action of the authorities was taken in good faith because
they were not subjected to deceit by the defendant, and unlike in Posner, where the employer was provided
with concededly accurate information of wrongdoing while the employee was being coerced, here we have
deceit purposefully directed at the employer for the sake of causing harm to the employee (Mauriello). The
NYPD was victimized by Schoolcraft in furtherance of his effort to cause Mauriello harm, a plan which has
succeeded to date in its impact on Mauriello.

23

criminal or fraudulent conduct, just the conduct described in section 768 of the
Restatement, citing NBT and Guard-Life). See also Hannex Corp. v. GMI, Inc.,
140 F.3d 194, 206 (2d Cir. 1998).
According to the opinion in Guard-Life, section 768 of the
Restatement [Second] of Torts defines “wrongful means” as including “physical
violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and
some degrees of economic pressure; they do not, however, include persuasion
alone although it is knowingly directed at interference with the contract.” Id.
Here, Schoolcraft has engaged in actions, each of which alone could constitute
wrongful means and all of which together certainly do constitute wrongful means
sufficient to sustain his claim for tortious interference even if the sole purpose of
Schoolcraft’s conduct was not to do Mauriello harm. See also Hannex Corp.,
140 F.3d at 206 (participating in a breach of fiduciary duty could constitute
wrongful means and should be decided by a jury); and Pagliaccio v. Holborn
Corp., 734 N.Y.S.2d 148, 148-49 (First Dept. 2001) (whether defendant’s threat
to sue plaintiff’s employer if the employment was not curtailed or terminated
constituted wrongful means is a triable issue of fact).
Schoolcraft’s wrongful means engaged in to get revenge against
Mauriello by damaging his employment relationship with the NYPD include: 1) his
personal downgrading of complaint reports, 2) his orchestration of events on
October 31, 2009, to trigger a reaction from the NYPD, 3) his misrepresentations
about his appeal being ignored when he knew he had never filed an appeal, 4)
his misrepresentations that he did not know why he was placed on restricted duty
despite having the reasons clearly explained to him by Dr. Lamstein, 5) his
24

accusations that Mauriello arranged to have him placed on restricted duty when
there is no evidence of any Mauriello involvement, and every indication that
Schoolcraft was seeking medical attention for the stress and anxiety that was the
basis for Dr. Lamstein placing him on restricted duty, 6) his reaching out to the
media to help him secure his revenge against Mauriello while promoting his
pursuit of an undeserved recovery (see SM Exhibit DC) and 7) his lies to QAD
and IAB for the explicit purpose of getting “revenge,” such as (i) his false claim
that he was concerned for the members of the predominantly minority community
served by the 81st Precinct, (ii) his false claim that he was concerned for his
fellow officers, (iii) his misrepresentation that the eleven complaint reports he
provided to QAD were just a small sample of the downgraded complaints which
he had accumulated and (iv) his misrepresentation that downgrading was
“chronic” and “systemic”.
Surely, in accordance with the opinions cited above, whether such
conduct constitutes wrongful means sufficient to sustain Mauriello’s claim for
tortious interference with his NYPD employment presents triable issues of fact for
a jury to resolve.
b.

Alternatively, Tortious Interference was the
Sole Purpose Of Schoolcraft’s Actions____

As the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed in Posner,
quoting its earlier opinion in Carvel,
To state a cause of action for tortious interference
with prospective contractual relations, a plaintiff must
plead that defendant directly interfered with a third party
and that the defendant either employed wrongful means
or acted ‘for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional
harm on plaintiff[ ].’
25

Posner, 18 N.Y.3d at 570, quoting Carvel, 3 N.Y.3d at 190. Here, there is
compelling evidence Schoolcraft “acted for the sole purpose of inflicting
intentional harm on [Mauriello].” It bears repeating in this context that the
recorded October 7, 2009, conversation between Schoolcraft and his father,
which was deleted from the recording produced by Schoolcraft in discovery,
contains statements that reveal their true intention – to get revenge against
Mauriello, not to do anything for the sake of benefitting the community or his
fellow officers. (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 1, 2, 9-13.)
In the October 7, 2009, recording, Schoolcraft and his father
rehearse what Schoolcraft will say to QAD and the father reminds Schoolcraft not
to let QAD realize Schoolcraft is out for “revenge”. (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 1.)
They discuss how Schoolcraft should pretend that he is providing only a small
sample of the complaint reports he had gathered, when in fact he had only
known of the eleven (or perhaps thirteen) he had gathered, several of which he
had initiated. School excitedly proclaims this is the way they are going to “fuck
[Mauriello] over.” (See Mauriello AMF ¶ 1.) In addition. from Schoolcraft’s eighthour recording of his entire day tour on October 31, 2009, we have the
conversation between Schoolcraft and another officer in which Schoolcraft says
“if I could get him [Mauriello]…if I could get him. I would sell him out faster than
anything. I would fucking sell him out faster than anything.” (See SM Response
3 to PSMF.)
These candid quotes, recorded by Schoolcraft himself, provide
compelling evidence that his sole purpose in falsely reporting wrongdoing to QAD
and IAB was to harm Mauriello in his relationship with the NYPD in revenge for
26

signing off on Schoolcraft’s appeal and for somehow arranging to have
Schoolcraft placed on restricted duty. Surely, there are genuine disputes about
the material facts relating to Mauriello’s tortious interference claim to require that
it be resolved by a jury.
B.

Mauriello’s Claim For Prima Facie Tort
Can Only Be Resolved At Trial______
Based upon the same evidence that supports Mauriello’s

counterclaim for tortious interference with his relationship with the NYPD,
Mauriello’s counterclaim for prima facie tort also should be left to the jury to
decide. The New York State Court of Appeals in Posner recited the elements of
a prima facie tort claim, as follows:
To State a legally cognizable claim for prima facie
tort, a plaintiff must allege ‘(1) the intentional infliction
of harm, (2) which results in special damages, (3) without
any excuse or justification, (4) by an act or series of acts
which would otherwise be lawful.’
18 N.Y.3d at 570 n.1, quoting Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 142-43
(1985). As discussed above, there are, at a minimum, genuine disputes about
the material facts relating to this counterclaim. It, too, should be tried by a jury.
POINT II
PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIM FOR UNLAWFUL
ENTRY SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IT RELATES TO MAURIELLO
In opposition to Schoolcraft’s motion to have the Court make “a
judicial determination as a matter of law that the NYPD defendants’ warrantless
entr[ies] into . . . Schoolcraft’s home violated the Fourth Amendment” and were
otherwise unjustified (Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment
Motion, page1), we rely upon our discussion of the Fourth Amendment claim as it
27

relates to Mauriello set forth in our motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of that claim. (See Mauriello’s Corrected Memorandum in Support of
His Motion for Summary Judgment Points II A, II A.v, and II A.v.b.)
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of the counterclaims asserted by Steven Mauriello should be
denied in its entirety. With respect to plaintiff’s motion for “a judicial
determination . . . that the NYPD defendants’ warrantless entr[ies] into . . .
Schoolcraft’s home violated the Fourth Amendment” and were otherwise
unjustified, that relief also should be denied to the extent it is asserted against
Mauriello for his entry into the apartment for three minutes during the first entry.
As to that claim against Mauriello, we respectfully request that Mauriello’s motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of that claim be granted in its entirety,
together with such other relief as the Court deems just.
Dated: New York, New York
February 11, 2015
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneys for Defendant STEVEN MAURIELLO

By: _____________________________
Walter A. Kretz, Jr., (WK-4645)
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022
[e-mail]
212-371-4500

28