Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 424

LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Nathaniel B. Smith dated 3-17-15. Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft.(Smith, Nathaniel)

LAW OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

ATTORNEY AT LAW
111 BROADWAY

NEw YoRK. NEw YoRK 100oe
TEL: (212! 2f 7-7062
FAX: (212: 3LJ.6-4EIEI5

:::-JA THANIEL B. SMITH

March 17,2015

BY HAND
I Ionorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York I 0007

Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, et al.,
I 0-cv-6005 (RWS)
Dear Judge Sweet:
;\s one of plainti tr s counsel, I am writing to the Court to request a premotion conference on the plaintiff's motion to strike the Declaration of Catherine
Lamstein (Court Dkt. # 410-1) filed on March 6, 20 15 by the City Defendants.
The motion to strike is based on the fact that the Declaration is inconsistent with
Lamstcin's deposition testimony and is new evidence being submitted with reply
papers on a motion for summary judgment.
I am also writing to object to the City Defendants' argument raised for the
lirst time in their reply papers that the City Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity in connection with the plaintiffs First Amendment claims. The reason
for the objection is that the issue was not raised in the City Defendants' initial
motion papers and was first raised only in their reply papers.

1. The

l~amslein Rep~v

Declaration

On December 22, 2014, the City Defendants filed their motion for summary
judgment seeking, among other things, dismissal of Officer Schoolcraft's claim
that they violated Officer Schoolcraft's rights when they entered his home on
October 31, 2009 without a warrant. The motion was based on the argument that

2
LAW 0FFICH 01''

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry because Office
Schoolcraft left work sick without permission and NYPD Psychologist Catherine
Lamstein allegedly told Captain Theodore Lauterbom that the City Defendants
"absolutely needed to find" Officer Schoolcraft. 1 During the same sequence of
dispositive motion practice, Officer Schoolcraft also tiled his motion for summary
judgment, which requested a determination as a matter of law that the warrantless
entry was illegal because there were no facts genuinely suggesting an cmergcncy 2
In opposing the City Defendants' summary judgment motion on the
warrantless entry issue, we argued that Lamstein did not testify at her deposition
that she told Lauterborn that he needed to find Officer Schoolcraft that night. 3
Instead, the deposition shows that five years after the fact she testified that she
4
"thought that he absolutely did need to find him." The record also shows that
Lamstein's detailed notes of her discussions with Lautcrborn did not reflect any
statement by Lamstein about a need to find Officer Schoolcraft. 5 Since Lamstcin's
unexpressed state of mind five years after the fact is irrelevant to the question of
whether the NYPD defendants had an emergency justification for their entry on the
evening of October 31, 2009, the defendants' argument was fatally flawed.
In reply, however, the City Defendants filed the Declaration ofLamstcin,
which states that "this statement that 'I thought [Capt. Lauterborn] absolutely did
need to find !Adrian Schoolcraftj and make sure that he was okay' was not just my
opinion but a statement that I conveyed to Capt. Lautcrborn on October 31, 2009." 6
Thus, Lamstein seeks with her Declaration to make a significant alteration in her
testimony, changing the statement that she thought it was a good idea to find
Officer Schoolcraft into a statement in the form of a "directive" that she actually
told I"autcrborn to find him on the evening of October 31, 2009.
The Lamstein Declaration should be stricken from the record and
disregarded by the Court for two reasons. First, the Declaration is inconsistent
with her deposition testimony on the important issue of what she actually told
Lautcrborn. Second, the Declaration is new evidence being submitted in reply that
1

City Mem., dated 12-22-14 ( Dkt. # 300) at p. 3.
Plaintifrs Mem., dated 12-23-14, at p. 34-39.
3
Plaintifrs Opp. Mem., dated 2-11-15, at pp. 2-5.
1
Lamstein Tr. 320:25-321 :3; attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5
Plaintifrs Opp. Mem. at 3-4.
6
Lamstein Dec., dated 3-5-15, at p. 2 ~ 6 (Dkt. #41 0-1 ).
2

J
LAW OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

should have been submitted at the time of the City Defendants' motion for
summary judgment or in opposition to the plainti!Ts motion for summary
judgment.
A. The Sham Issue ofFact Doctrine Requires Striking the Declaration.

At no point in the Lamstein deposition did she testifY that on October 31,
2009 she made any statement that there was any kind of emergency that required
Lauterborn to find Oflicer Schoolcraft that night. To the contrary, Lamstein
testified that she told Lauterborn: "I told him that as of the last time I saw him,
which was a few days earlier, I had no reason to think he was a danger to himsel r
or others. Never expressed thoughts or suicide. It didn't seem to be anything that
serious that would lead me to be concerned." 7
While she also volunteered information in her deposition about her alleged
state of mind five years after the fact, her testimony (and her notes 8) clearly state
that she told Lauterborn that as of the time she last saw him (i.e., October 27,
2009), Officer Schoolcraft was fine and that she had no reason to believe he was a
danger to himself or others. Indeed, Lamstein's testimony was based primarily on
four pages of her notes about the events of October 31, 2009. Those notes and a
type-written version she prepared after the fact to brief her supervisors are attached
hereto as Exhibit B. Lamstein was extensively examined on the contexts of her
9
notes for October 31, 2009, which she also read into the record verbatim. Nothing
in those notes or her deposition show or suggest that she gave Lauterborn a
'"directive" that he had to find Officer Schoolcraft or that there was some sort of
psychiatric emergency authorizing extreme measures to find Officer Schoolcraft.

' Lamstein Tr. 3 19:22-320:2; Exh. A (emphasis added).
The last entry that Lam stein made about the events of October 31, 2009 was
made on October 14, 20 I 0, about a year after the fact. Lam stein Tr. 331:2-339:9.
She testified that this "delayed entry" was prompted by accounts of the matter in
the media and that she wanted to make the entry in her file to reflect what she
recalled about what she told Lauterborn because the existing notes ref1ected what
he told her. !d. at 332:13-333:9. In fact, the "delayed entry" was added to her file
the day after she was interviewed by lAB. See Scott Memorandum, dated 2/15/11
at p. 1; attached hereto as Exhibit D ("subsequent interview involving Dr.
Lam stein on October 13, 201 0'').
9
/dat325:8-331:15 & 339:11-341:18.
8

4
LAW OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

Settled law in this Circuit prohibits a party from manufacturing a sham issue
of fact to defeat a summary judgment motion. "A party may not create an issue of
fact by submitting an atlidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment
that by omission or addition, contradicts the atliant's previous deposition
testimony." 111 If a party who has been examined at length could raise an issue of
fact simply by submitting an atlidavit contradicting the party's prior deposition
testimony, the utility of summary judgment as a procedure would be greatly
Jmll11S
d. . . I1e d. II
Rare faced contradictions are not the only kinds of shifts in testimony that
can be disregarded. Thus, changes in the theory of a case or the flavor of the
testimony can be disregarded. 12 In addition, Rule 30( e)( 1)(B) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure provides an express procedure for a witness making changes or
corrections to a deposition transcript 30 days after the transcript is made available
to the witness. and a post-deposition affidavit seeking to make further changes to a
deposition transcript in response to a summary judgment motion should be
.
·
d 1sregarde d . ll
Here, Lamstein reviewed her January 30, 2014 deposition transcript on April
24, 20 14 and made numerous changes and corrections. A copy of her errata sheet
is attached as Exhibit C, and it shows over 120 corrections or changes to the
transcript. While the relevant portions of her deposition about her actual
discussions with Lauterbom remained unchanged in her errata sheet, Lamstein's
Declaration now seeks to make a radical alteration in the substance of her
testimony- changes made long after the 30-day period, long after the close of
discovery, and only after summary judgment motions on the issue have been filed.
By a mere slight of hand she seeks to convert an unexpressed thought five years
after the fact into an alleged statement by her to Lauterbom to "absolutely find
him." Indeed, the dramatic shift in her testimony is made clear by the City
Defendants. In their reply memorandum, the City Defendants now explicitly argue
that the Lamstein Declaration shows that she gave Lauterborn a "directive" to find
Officer Schoolcraft that night. 14
10 !!ayes v. NYC Dept. of Corrections, 84 F. 3d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 1996); accord
Brown v. Henderson, 257 f. 3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 200 I).
11
Haves, supra, at 619.
12 S'mith v. Target Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 165256 at * 16 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).
13
Felix- Torres v. Graham, 687 F. Supp. 2d 38,50 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).
14
City Def. Mem., dated 3-6-15, at p. 2 (Dkt. # 411).

5
LAVl OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

This is not a minor modification to background facts; it goes directly to the
City Defendants' legal basis and justification for breaking into Officer
Schoolcrall' s home. Indeed, in the City Defendants' memorandum of law in
opposition to Officer Schoolcraft's motion for summary judgment, the City
Defendants argued that our motion ignored "the very critical fact" that Lamstein
allegedly told Lautcrborn to find Officer Schoolcrafi. 15 Thus, the Court should not
permit the City Defendants to manufacture an issue on this "very critical tact"
precisely because the "fact" simply does not exist and it is a mere sham created
only in response to our summary judgment motion.
Nothing in the defendants' papers provides the Court with any justification
for accepting or justifying the Lamstein Declaration. In their reply papers, the City
Defendants claim that the Lamstein Declaration seeks to "clarify and explain" her
16
deposition testimony. But neither Lamstein in her perfunctory Declaration nor
the City Defendants in their reply papers make any effort to explain why anything
in her deposition needed "clarification" or "explanation." Nor do they make any
effort to explain the reasons for the inconsistency between her Declaration and her
deposition. While a party can certainly clarify ambiguous, confusing or
incomplete testimony, where a post-deposition affidavit raises obvious
inconsistencies, the proponent must provide some plausible explanation for them. 17
I Icrc, the City Defendants tailed to offer any explanation and Lamstein merely
states in a conclusory fashion that "in fact" her deposition testimony "was not just
my [unexpressed] opinion but a statement that I conveycd." 18
In sum, the Declaration is inconsistent with her deposition testimony of what
she actually said she told Lauterborn and with her detailed notes of her discussions
with Lauterborn. And the City Defendants offer the Court no explanation
whatsoever explaining her shifting versions ofthe events. Accordingly, the Court
should strike the Lamstein Declaration from the record and disregard it.
In the event, however, that the Court does not strike the Declaration, then we
15

City Def. Opp. Mem., dated 2-11-15 at p. 7 (Dkt. # 375).
J<, City Def Reply Mem. at p. 2 (Dkt. # 411) ("Lamstein has clarified and
explained that her testimony regarding the directive to find plaintiff was not an
unexpressed thought, but a statement that she actually made to Captain Lauterborn
on October 31, 2009.)
17
Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F. 3d 549, 555 n.2 (2d Cir. 2005)
1
s Lamstein Dec. ~ 6 (Dkt. #41 0-1 ).

6
l.AW OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

request the opportunity to response more fully to the tardy submission. For
example. the Lamstein Declaration cannot save the City Defendants from having
our motion for summary judgment granted against the City Defendants for their
warrantless entry. Even if the Lamstein Declaration was accepted as evidence of
what she allegedly told Lauterbom. there is no evidence in this record that
Lauterborn was aware of this alleged "directive" at the time or acted upon it, and
the fellow officer or collective knowledge doctrine requires some communication
and only applies among police officers. 19 Moreover, Chief Marino testified at his
deposition that he had no information at the time of the entry that Officer
Schoolcraft was dangerous to himself or others. Finally, the City Defendants have
not submitted any evidence from Chief Marino, DI Mauriello, Captain Lauterborn
or anyone else at the scene that they were acting based on some "directive" from
Lamstcin to "absolutely find" Ofticer Schoolcraft.
13_ The Dec/a ration is New Evidence Improperly Submitted in Reply

The Lamstein Declaration should also be stuck on the ground that it is new
evidence that the City Defendants did not submit in their initial motion for
summary judgment and have filed only as part of their reply papers. Indeed, the
City Defendants did not even submit the Lamstein Declaration as part of their
opposition to Officer Schoolcraft's motion for summary judgment on the same
issue regarding the existence of objective facts of an emergency justification for
the warrantless entry.
A party cannot attempt to cure deficiencies in its moving papers by
including new evidence in reply papers because that practice improperly deprives a
party of the opportunity to response to the new evidence. 20 Judge Baer has aptly
summarized the law on this issue:

19

Colon v_ City of New York, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lex is 46451 at* 14 (S.D.N.Y. April
2, 2014) (some communication required); United States v_ Colon, 250 F.3d 130,
(2d Cir. 200 I) (collective knowledge doctrine applies only to police officers or
others with specialized police training; extending doctrine to civilian 911 operator
would go beyond the doctrine's jurisprudential parameters).
20
See. e.g. United Stales ex rd Karlin v Noble Jewelry Holdimngs, Ltd, 2012 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 51675 at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Apri\9, 2012).

7
LAW 0FI<~ICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

"[I]t is established beyond peradventure that it is improper to sandbag
one's opponent by raising new matter in reply." Murphy v. Village of
Hoffman Estates. 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3320, at *5-6 (N.D. 11/. 1999)
("[p]roviding specitlcs in a reply in support of a general argument in an
objection counts as new matter in reply"); see also, e.J.;., Wike v. Vertrue,
inc .. 2007 U.S Dist. U;;>:IS 19843, at *21-22 (M.D. Tenn. 2007) ("the Court
will not allow [movant] to sandbag the PlaintilT by first presenting the
evidence in reply"); Brennan v. AT&T Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8237.
at *26-27 (S.D. Ill. 2006). Typically, in such situations, the Court strikes the
evidence presented for the first time in reply, and does not consider it for
purposes of ruling on the motion. See, e.g., Wike v. Vertrue, Inc., 2007 U.S
Dist. LEXJS 19843, at *21-22; Brennan v. AT&T Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXJS 8237, at *26-27. This Court will adopt such a remedy here, and strike
Plaintiffs evidence presented with its reply brief, and not consider it for the
purposes of ruling on this motion. 21
Since the Lamstein Declaration could have been submitted in support of the
City Defendants' motion or c\'en in opposition to our motion, it should be
disregarded. And to the extent that the Court does decide to consider it, as noted
above, we request an opportunity to submit further papers in response to it.
2. The Qualified Immunity Argument

The City Defendants also raise a new issue about qualified immunity for the
tirst time in their reply papers. Claiming that the recent decision by the Second
Circuit in Matthews v. City ofNew York, 22 represents a shift in the Jaw, the City
Defendants argue that the decision now also forms the basis for a qualified
immunity defense because the NYPD defendants could not have anticipated the
decision in 2009.n
Since this qualified immunity issue was not raised in the City Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, the Court should not consider it. While the
authorities cited above are controlling on the new argument issue, the decision in

21

Wolters Kluwer Fin Ser. inc. v. Scivantage, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27048 at *2-3
(S.D.N.Y. 2007).
22
2015 U.S. App. Lexis 3016 (2d Cir. Feb. 26, 2015).
21
· City Reply Mem. (Dkt. # 411) at p. I I.

8
LAW OFFICE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

Afaleo \'. Brislmr

24

is also directly relevant:

Finally, in their Reply Memorandum, Defendants for the first time
assert that Dean and Maldonado are entitled to qualified immunity in
connection with their search of Plaintiffs cell. (Reply 8-9.) It is well
established, however, that a court should not "consider arguments that are
raised for the first time in a reply brief." Cluhside. Inc. v. Valentin, 468 F.3d
144, !59 n.5 (2d Cir. 2006); see ABN Amra Verzekeringen BVv.
Geologistics Ams., inc., 485 F.3d 85,97 n. 12 (2d Cir. 2007) ("We decline to
consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief"); Patterson v.
Balsamico, 440 F .3d I 04, 113 n.5 (2d Cir. 2006) ("This Court generally will
not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief"); Fisher v.
Kanas, 487 F. Supp. 2d 270, 278 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding that an argument
raised for the first time in a reply brief was waived); Playboy
Enters. v. Dumas, 960 F. Supp. 710, 720 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Arguments
made for the first time in a reply brief need not be considered by a court.")
(collecting cases). Defendants offer no reason why that rule should not apply
here, and the Court perceives none. Accordingly, because Defendants failed
to raise qualified immunity in their initial brief~ the Court deems that
argument waived for purposes of this motion and will not consider
it. See Rowley v. City ofNew York, No. 00 Civ. 1793 (DAB), 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 22241,2005 WL 2429514, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2005) (declining to consider a qualified immunity argument raised for the
first time in a reply brief}
Thus, the Court should not consider this argument. In the alternative, the
Court should permit Ofticer Schoolcraft to demonstrate that the argument should
be rejected on the merits. Qualified immunity turns on the clearly established law
that existed at the time of the misconduct, not subsequent developments in the
law. 2' And for purposes of qualified immunity, the governing law was clearly
established as of 2009: under the First Amendment, a governmental actor could
21

20

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXJS 106478 at* 25-26 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2013).

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 244 (2009) ("This inquiry turns on the
objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that
were clearly established at the time it was taken"); Golodner v. Security
Technology Systems LLC, 770 F. 3d 196, 203 (2d Cir. 20 14) (courts review the
clearly-established issue prior to and at the moment of the alleged violation).

9
LAW 0FFTCE OF

NATHANIEL

B.

SMITH

not lawfully take adverse actions against a public employee in retaliation for that
'b
cmp Ioyee ' s speec h on matters o t' pu bl"1c concern.Thus, the City Defendants' argument about Matthews should be rejected.
Moreover, the Matthews decision, which was decided after we submitted our last
memorandum of law to the Court on the First Amendment issue, makes clear that
Otlicer Schoolcraft's speech and conduct raising issues with lAB, QAD and his
supervisors at the 81 't Precinct, as well as his plans to report that misconduct to the
Commissioner, are matters of public concern that are entitled to First Amendment
protection before his October 31, 2009 suspension.

*

*

*

For these reasons, we request that the Court schedule this matter for a premotion conference on our proposed motion to strike the Lamstein Declaration and
to disregard the City Defendants' qualified immunity defense.

Respectfully submitted,

'/

//,:J;t:;r,w:

/

/f':J· //
//

;/

Nathaniel B. Smith

/\II Cuunscl
(by email w/ encl.)

2

Golodner v. Security Technology Systems LLC, 770 F. 3d 196, 206 (2d Cir.
2014) (right to be free from retaliation for speech on matters of public concern was
firmly established well before 2009).
c'

EXHIBIT A

Page 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2

---------------------------------------------X

3

ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,

4

Plaintiff,

5

Case No:
-

6

against -

10

cv

06005

7

THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

ET AL.,

8

9
10

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------X

11

100 Church Street
New York,

New York

12
January 30,

2014

10:22 a.m.

13
14
15
16
17

DEPOSITION OF CATHERINE LAMSTEIN-REISS,

18

pursuant to Subpoena,

taken at the above

19

place,

before DENISE ZIVKU,

20

Notary Public within and for

21

New York.

date and time,

M.D.,

a

the State of

22
23
24
25

212-267-6868

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www. veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 174
C.

1

2

made

3

performance evaluation and a

4

M.D.

them taking his memo book.

5

a

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

complaint contesting his

Q.

He

complaint about

did not complain

6

what he perceived as

7

supervisors

at

annual

the

to you about

retaliation by his

81

Precinct?

8

MR.

KRETZ:

9

MS.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

10

Objection.

11

A.

He

Objection.

did not

12

any kind of formal

13

That he made

14

Q.

15

getting

tell me

that he made

complaint about

that.

any kind of complaint
Did he

tell you

that he was

retaliated against by supervisors?

16

MS.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

17

Objection.

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

When did he

20

A.

The

21

Q.

April

22

A.

Right.

first
13 '

23

were mad at him for

24

tell

time

I

you

that?

saw him.

2009?

That he

thought

they

evaluation.

25

Q.

212-267-6868

All

contesting his

right,

can you

turn

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

to

the

516-608-2400

Page 175
1

2

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

third page of Exhibit

68,

M.D.

please?

3

A.

What page?

4

Q.

The

third page of

MR.

CALLAN:

MR.

SMITH:

5

document?

6
7

the big fat

What's

the Bates

Stamp?

8

It's

2895.

9

Q.

10

before?

11

A.

12

dated 2/21?

13

Q.

Correct.

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Who prepared this?

16

A.

I

17

Q.

Why?

18

A.

My director

Have you ever

We're

seen

this page

talking about

the

timeline

did.

kind of a

asked me

19

together

20

preparation for

21

department advocates

22

remember

i f legal bureau was

23

remember

at

24

advocates

25

of our case with

to put

brief minimal

timeline 1n

meeting with people at
office.

I

the

can't

there

too.

I

least some people of department

office who wanted an understanding
him and

the

timeline of

VERITEXT REPORTII'<G COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-008-2400

Page 176
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

things.

3

Q.

When

4

A.

February 21,

M.D.

5

of sitting in

6

through

7

work more

8

9

-2010.

So

instead

meeting

taking

whole

a

a

folder,

i t would help us

quickly discuss
And was

Q.

timeline your

time going
to

the main point.

the basis

for

this

notes?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Was

12

than your

13

this

there anything else,

notes

that

formed

the

other

basis

for

timeline?

14

MS.

15

Objection.

16

A.

17

from my

18

not

19

received

from

20

but i t ' s

actually the

21

also

22

his

23

night of

24

notes.

25

in

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

It's

possible

some

clear memory at the
the

notes
a

or

time

hospital

Q.

Is

that were

he had

time

I

seen or

wrote

this

All

of

~s

that

an accurate

this

that

IAB and from

the duty captain on

Halloween.

were

other information we

included information from
command and

things

the

in the

summary,

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .vcritext.com

516-60~·2400

Page 177
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

this

3

through

4

A.

In

5

Q.

Are

6

M.D.

three-page document Bates

you're

Stamped 2895

2897?

aware

it's

briefest format.

there

any errors

1n i t

that

of?

7

MS.

8

Objection.

9

A.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

No,

there

10

to be more

11

no

errors.

I

tend

things more brief

Q.

12
13
14

detailed,

are

are

I

my directors prefer

just want

to

know

There are no errors

A.
that

16

pertinent to put in and my director

17

we don't

would have

need

Q.
mistakes

I

there may be

things

19

there

any errors

15

18

if

that.

Stick

Sitting here
in here,

thought were

to

said ah,

the basics.

today

there 1s

no

right?

20

MS.

21

Objection.

22

A.

To

23

Q.

The f i r s t

24

referred

to

the best of my knowledge.
line

says

4/13/09 MOS

PES.
MS.

25

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

That's

VERITEXT REPORTING COJ'v!PANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 317
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

report

3

records

4

form

5

removed.

6

that

7

requesting a

new

8

Q.

Okay.

9

typewritten

that gets

sent out.

that

the

10

were

12

see

the

~n

fill
gun

the blank

should be

any kind of evaluation,

guns

were

removed and

ID

card and

on.

to

the

that you've

there's

just

that we're

so

Going back

timeline

The entry

11

a

that

just says
Not

We have our case

like

and we have

M.D.

created.

an entry 10/31/09.

the psychologist on pager duty.

You

You

that?

13

A.

I

14

Q.

And you got a

15

Lau terborn?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Do you

18

call

do.
from Captain

remember getting

that

from Captain Lauterborn?

19

A.

More

20

Lauterborn

21

who

22

duty

requesting

23

that

request

24

back.

25

call

then

So

Q.

212-267-6868

specifically,

called the

Captain

sick desk

supervisor,

called the psychologist on pager

I

I

respond and

in

response

to

called Captain Lauterborn

he didn't

call me directly.

Did Captain Lauterborn
VERlTEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www.veritext.com

know

that

Page 318
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

you were

the psychologist

3

Schoolcraft when

4

MS.

5

A.

7

happens

8

supervisor,

9

duty and

that

had

seen

called?

Objection.

6

he

M.D.

is

don't believe

they
who

call

So

happened

the

looks

they call

Q.

10
11

I

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

up

to be

did.

What

sick desk
and

whoever

on October

he

1s
31,

sees

who

is

on

on duty.
2009,

you

on pager duty?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

So

14

sick desk

15

from

the

Captain

and he was

looking

psychological

16

MS.

17

A.

for

called the
somebody

evaluation

services?

Objection.

18

Lauterborn

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

Psychological evaluation
Although,

19

section.

20

services

21

screening,

22

looking

23

give

24

the psychological

situation.

25

section,

for

him a

Q.

which does

they also
a

pre-employment

do pager duty.

department psychologist

call

to

consult about

Did you

tell

Captain

He was
to

the

Lauterborn

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPA;\IY

212-267 6868

www. veri text .com

516-608-2400

Page 319
1

2

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

M.D.

you had evaluated and met with

3

A.

Yes.

4

Q.

And

5

conversation

6

October

7

A.

Yes.

8

Q.

What else did you

Schoolcraft?

told him

that during

the

that you had with him on

31st?

9

A.

Captain

Lau terborn?

10

tell

He was

reason

asking me

if

there was

11

any

to be concerned about

12

that he

13

upset and said he had stomach pains

14

should

15

look for

16

Typically,

17

said he wasn't sure

18

him,

19

psychological problem as

20

disciplinary one and

21

with me.

went AWOL and that he

they be concerned,
him,
in

because

22
time

I

24

earlier,

25

danger

212-267-6868

to

thought

had no

they do.
to

opposed

to

himself or others.

He

suspend

was more

that as

reason

to go

okay.

this

a

and

they need

to

so he wanted

which was

fact

seemed to be

they wanted

told him

saw him,
I

sure he's

that situation

they

I

23

make

do

the

of

few

of a

a

to

the

consult

last

days

think he was

a

Never

YERlTEXT REPORTING COMPAI\'Y
www .veritext.com

s 16-608-2400

Page 320
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

expressed

thoughts

3

seem to be anything

4

lead me

5

also

6

went AWOL,

7

to

8

pains,

9

not know

if

10

happened

that

11

was

acting

12

and

that kind of stuff and

13

reoccurrence

14

that he did that or maybe

15

never went away

16

sure and

17

though,

18

suicidal,

19

i t was

to be

never

20

reason

21

was

22

of suicide.

acted like

that would

However,

he had

that before.

leaving even
now

I t didn't

that serious

concerned.

stay and was

M.D.

He

though he was

So

I

did

that meant something new
led him to be

in a

of

so upset

different manner
led

stomach pains

was
he's

had

these

nothing like
think he was,

going AWOL

to

a

stomach pains

to begin with

not saying

that he

badly enough

the

that my evaluation

to

told

saying he had stomach

while being visibly upset.

I

never

and

I

is

wasn't

even

this person
thoughts,
I

that.

is

you must

had no

them.

only as

good as

So

23
or

last

time

I

something happened

24

then

25

that may be different.

212-267-6868

they're

if

the

except my evaluation

acting different
And so

I

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www. veritext.com

saw

s~nce

since

then,

thought he

516-608-2400

Page 321
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

absolutely did need to

3

sure

that he

Q.

4

was
Was

M.D.

find him and make

okay.
your

sharing of

information

5

about Schoolcraft with Lauterborn a

6

violation of

Schoolcraft's privacy?

7

MS.

8

Objection.

9

A.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

No.

This

10

treatment

11

our office before

12

them to

13

that

14

record only within

15

on

a

16

~s

on

records.

open

need

to

the

Whenever
they

that

the

they come

to

before

I

allow

on all,

I

make sure
~s

interview

on

the

the department and only

know basis,

so within

that

it

record.

17

So

in

this

18

and

they're upset and

19

say

their

20

in

21

know,

22

about why he was

23

information like,

24

his

25

problem,

case,
they

stomach hurts

that manner,
for

him

father

212-267-6868

--

their mouth

they know

they're not

~s

I

to

used

whether

deemed
know
on

or

leave and

and

is AWOL
they

they're acting

there was

some basic

a

need to

information

restricted duty.

you

--

someone

know,

Not

whether or

not

had any kind of drug
not he's

had sex

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPi\f\'Y
www .veritext.com

in

the

516608-2400

Page 322
C.

1

2

last

few

3

business.

4

That does

5

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

years.

I

mean,

M.D.

like

hand.

He doesn't need
not

relate

to

that's

to

the

know

7

we

need

8

so

I

9

pertinent

to

be

concerned about

released
to

information
that,

while

10

else

11

though

12

department,

it's

13

not private

treatment

14

everything needs

15

out

as

confidential.
it's

on

issues

this

that

guy and

deemed

I

keeping everything

Like

said,

I

record within

even

the

an NYPD evaluation.

to

records.

be

of do

It's

Not

known

to be given

rather.

Q.

16

the

that.

situation at

What did relate was

6

not his

The entry here

17

Lauterborn

18

night;

is

kept you
that

says

informed

right,

19

A.

Q.

Did he

throughout

the

that?

Correct.

20

he did

that Captain

21

22

with

Schoolcraft's

A.

I

notes,

24

that

he

spoke

to

212-267-686X

believe he did.

reference my
Yes,

he

definitely did.

Q.

I

you

father?

would have

23

25

but

tell

Did he

tell

you

that

VERITEXT REPORTir--;G COMPANY
www .veritcxt.com

516-608-2400

Page 323
1

C.

2

Schoolcraft's

3

knew

LAMSTEIN-REISS,
father

A.

I

5

there was

6

something,

nothing
yeah,

Q.

8

that he

had a

9

and

father

the words

were

that

to worry about or
to

that effect.

Lauterborn did

the

that he

fine?

believe

7

10

told Lauterborn

Schoolcraft was

4

M.D.

report

conversation with
was

not

to

the

you
father

concerned about

the

son?

11

MS.

12

Objection.

13

A.

The

father

not concerned,

but

I

15

son

that day or

16

going on.

It

seemed

17

why he was

on

restricted duty.

18

seemed to me

that maybe Officer

19

at

it

20

just didn't want his

21

was

22

at

23

didn't know

24

father

25

symptoms

on
the

know

was

14

the

don't

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

time,

that he had spoken with his
that he even knew everything
the

seemed

to me

father

So

the

that,

I

knew he went
that were

fact

And i t
Schoolcraft,

that he maybe
to

that

didn't know
to

didn't know

know why he

That was my

restricted duty.
time.

father

a

stress

the
if

theory

father
the

hospital with heart
related.

I

didn't

VERITEXT REPORTir\G COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.corn

516-608-2400

Page 324
C.

1

2

know

if

3

Seroquel.

4

was

not

the

father
I

knew

What

I

6

Captain Lauterborn

7

conversation with
A.

8

9

to

that

the

11

all,

but he was

12

reasons

13

they were

father

the

they were

I

A.

It's

31,

2009

18

20:15

19

the page,

the

hours

I

not
to

time

of

noted in

is

concerned at

the

father

the

the

reason

him.

If you want

from

would have

recollection

would appreciate
the
that
the

notes

to

look at

that.
of October

conversation was
left-hand column

of

20:15.
MS.

20

about his

concerned and

Okay.

17

but my

looking for

what did

father?

explaining

notes,

16

1s

said he was

Q.
your

know

to

stuff.

tell you

notes,

10

15

this

My recollection

review my

14

I t seemed like he

father
want

M.D.

he'd been prescribed

didn't know.

telling his

Q.

5

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

21

Q.

That

is

on D283.

22

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

23
24

your

Do you have

10/31/09 notes
A.

25

the

in front

Which page is
MS.

first

page

of

of you?

that.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

I

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868

www. veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 325
1

C.

2

believe you're

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

MR.

3
4

referring

5

2899

SMITH:

and 282,

Mr.

Smith?

I'm actually

pager.
MS.

6
7

0282,

8

Q.

9

for

with

the

ledger and

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

~s

in your

A.
rather

2901,

It

is

i t is but 2901.
So

10/31

10
11

to

M.D.

I

there a
file,

don't

long,

rather

long entry

Doctor?

know what you

consider

but i t ' s

12

Q.

Four pages?

13

A.

One,

14

third,

16

that

17

three,

four

and a

yes.

Q.

15

two,

All

into

the

right,

can

you

just read

record.

A.

Sure.

Adrian

Schoolcraft,

10/31/09,

I

I

18

P.O.

19

of

20

hours.

21

desk

22

below

23

hours.

24

10/31/09.

25

Pager duties

regarding

Sergeant Kloos.

the page
Page

noted
number

that
455

was

on

at

refers

to

the

log of my being put on duty.
that

that

Back

to

I

was

on

I

left
17:40
sick
noted

off duty at 21:40

the main

text

in

Telephone contact with

the body.
sick desk

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.corn

516-608-2400

Page 326
C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

MS.

3

K-1-o-o-s.

4

A.

M.D.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

Yes.

I

believe

5

spelling.

I t ' s possible

6

spelling.

MOS

7

slammed sick

8

and said he was

9

told him to

was

today.

the

going out

left.

11

they

12

and wait for

13

MOS was

14

switchboard.

15

Cops

16

arrival.

17

They

18

Since

19

suspending him,

20

of psych problem.

21

81

22

requests

23

He

sergeant's
sick.

stick around.

10

the

I'm wrong about the

at work

report on

that's

He

desk

Sergeant

refused and

name.

24

25

Didn't follow procedure.

Typically,

called sick desk and get authorization

are

command to arrange

working on
MOS

at his

the

telephone

did not go

Q.
received

answer.

is

but

from

cell phone.

then hung up.

They are

thinking of

they suspect i t is more
XO of MOS's

command,

the

Captain Lauterborn and

response

The

his

on his

think he picked up and

Precinct,

straight home.

home waiting for

They called MOS

then no

coverage.

is

from

PES and

information

Sergeant Kloos

I

signed my

that you

from

the

sick

YERITEXT REPORTif\'G COMPAI'iY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.corn

5 16-608-2400

Page 327
C.

1

2

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

M.D.

desk?

3

A.

Correct.

4

Q.

All

5

A.

I t will

6

reading

7

that

8

him because

9

a

right,

through

the

please

be more

the

notes,

continue.

clear as
but

it's

part about possibly not
they

psych problem,

10

secondhand

11

came directly,

12

thought

possible

suspending

i t might be more of

that may have

through

I'm

come

Sergeant Kloos.

notes.

i t would be

Telephone

13

the

rest

contact with

14

Lauterborn.

15

today

all

day,

16

switchboard all

day.

17

typically

keeps

to

18

much

other

officer

19

Nothing

seemed out of ordinary.

20

he

down

21

then put

22

and said go1ng

sick.

23

stomach pain.

Sergeant

24

but he

25

has

at

TS

with

went

a

to

sick

doing

a

7

to

meaning
All

Captain

day

3

locker

fine.

and did

report on

allegations

He

same

He
converse
today.

2:00p.m.,

changed and

sergeant's
wrote

tried

tour

telephone

was

room,

it

the

self and doesn't

l e f t anyway.

made

212 267-6868

MOS

If

desk

that he
to

Underlying

had

stop him,
issues.

MOS

against others.

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 328
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

Department's

3

allegations

4

snowballed

from

5

P. 0. 's

two

6

down

7

and

8

telephone

9

going.

and

for

investigation
picked up

this

there.

it.

message

MOS

to

13

that

14

that's

15

Today was

first

16

sure what

happened

17

to

information

asked --

the person was
says

what he

tour back
today

a

after
that

it
asked.

he.

was

them

Or

Anyway,

asked.
RDOs.

Not

triggered him

that.

19

Captain

20

asked him

21

lieutenant

22

there.

23

there earlier.

24

footsteps

peers,

Lauterborn all
go back

is

at

Landlord

when

sergeants

l e f t him messages

to

command.

him home.

His

and
and

A

car

is

said MOS may have been
Can

home.

usually hear MOS's
MOS

Next entry,

212-267-6868

from

about

they were

Delegates,

25

is

tries

should have been what

to

~n

he

12

was

them

are

return,

about what

like

to

who

11

it

up

knows

them and get

18

goes

four

called

he

intercept

leave

about

so

10

what

week

Notifications

log,

they

thought

and i t

civilian people were

asked about

he

these

week

This

questioning.

When

of

M.D.

I

not

home.

left a

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www. veritext.com

message on

516-608-2400

Page 329
1

C.
cell

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

MOS's

3

Captain

4

that

5

to

6

command.

I

7

captain,

so

8

and easily without need for

9

mobilization

I

gave my cell

Captain

home

could

i f didn't want
urged him to
this

to

easier

12

now.

13

concerned for

14

make

like

just resolve

his

17

that

18

described above.

19

call MOS's

suspension.

20

he

21

likely

22

will

23

from MOS,

to

to

I

they want

to

contact

cell phone as

that's

the person
is most

Captain

whereabouts.

locates

or hears

signed my name.
Next entry at 20:15

Telephone

just

suggested that captain

call undersigned when

24

is

and the person who

know his

Much

informed captain

on MOS's

father because

closest

his

city-wide

telephone

with Captain Lauterborn.

I

or call

okay.

16

left message

the

him or

safety and
is

to

i t quickly and easily

Next entry,

15

25

a

explained that everyone

sure everyone

is

go

resolved quickly

search for

11

I

to

told him

just return

go home

could be

disciplinary action,

I

I

said he

10

to

number and

cell phone.

Lauterborn's

the

his

phone.

M.D.

hours.

contact with Captain Lauterborn.
VERll'EXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.cum

516-60~-2400

Page 330
1

C.
no

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

Still

word

from MOS.

3

father,

who

4

Father,

quote,

5

over

6

understood captain's

7

confirmed.

8

encourage him

9

to MOS's

also

M.D.

Captain

hadn't heard from him.

had

the phone

issues,

some

over phone,

to

go

landlord has

12

captain

has

13

Have

to

have

14

that

call MOS

asked i f

go

home,

but

route.

a

I

and

Captain will

possible he's

not answering phone.

11

but eventually

will

home.

It's

10

end quote,

point of view and

Hoping father

home.

called MOS's

spare key.

it,

but

15

Q.

issues

16

A.

I

Hoping

What were
didn't

to

those

MS.

18

Q.

All

right,

20

A.

And

I

avoid going

issues?

don't

know.

Objection.

19

and

with using.

legal
I

ask.

17

said yes

He

legal

cause.

the

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

go

ahead?

signed my

21

hours

the

22

hours

is

23

with

24

since

not

25

and

20:40

name.

I'm sorry 21:40

next entry

signed my name.

the

Sergeant Kloos.

I

212-267-6868

Telephone

next entry.

known

Sick

when MOS

desk

contact

off duty

might be

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritcxt.com

located

5 I 6-608-2400

Page 331
C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

Then next page on

2

M.D.
the

top

3

regarding Adrian

Schoolcraft addendum

4

10/31/09 note

telephone

5

Captain Lauterborn at approximately 17:50

6

hours.

7

reviewing folder,

8

found

9

but is

of

contact with

Delayed entry made

to

the below information was
in prior note,

in undersigned's memory.

10

Captain

11

or depressed because he needed

12

concerned they

13

given his

14

calls,

15

car was

16

Q.

17

In

on 10/14/10.

not be documented

clear

to

Lauterborn asked i f MOS

was
to

know how

should be about MOS's

not answering door of home,

Can

safety

Not answering phone

going AWOL.

there,

suicidal

but his

et cetera.
I

When did you make

stop you
this

right

there.

entry?

18

A.

October 1 4 '

19

Q.

October what?

20

A.

14,

2010.

21

Q.

Can

I

22

you're

reading

see

2010.

the

original

that

from?

23

A.

Sure.

24

Q.

How do you

25

this

know

entry on October 24,

212-267-6868

that you made

2010?

VERil-EXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veri text .com

516-608-2400

Page 332
C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

MS.

3

Objection.

4

MR.

5

right.

6

A.

7

It's

on

read

11

said October 14th.
No,

SMITH:

that's

what

I

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

And what you

delayed entry made

10/14/10?

Correct,

13

Q.

Why did you make

a

In

file

the

that's

on

A.

in

what

that means.

delayed entry

file?
reviewing

the

15

A.

16

that my

17

contact with

18

on

19

not document what

I

20

that.

or perhaps,

21

aware

22

with

23

conversation

24

that

25

or something like,

initial

notes

Since

of my

I

then

just from
the media

telling me

and

focused
I

did

had told him regarding

interviews

the

I

had become
officer did

that mischaracterized that

that said I

there were

realized

telephone

Captain Lauterborn were

information he was

212-267-6868

She also

read out loud was

12

14

wrote.

i t out loud.

Q.
the words

I'm sorry you're

the page.

MS.

10

She

The 14th.

8
9

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

Because

there

M.D.

I

told the

think no

captain

cause for

concern

that he had no

VERITEXT REPORTI"'G COMPANY
www. veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 333

C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

psychological problems.

3

that.

4

reviewing

5

telling

6

was

7

very,

8

important

to

9

date

I

So

at

the

Something like

some point 1n

the

folder

M.D.

and

the

I

realized

captain everything

not previously documented,
very

that

add

what media

12

this

that

note

and

note

i t was

So
I

was

that my

that

but

I

I

felt

noted

it

the

added i t .
So

11

in

clear 1n my memory.

Q.

10

future,

what was

that

the

led you

a

statement 1n

year

later

to make

entry?

13

MS.

14

Objection.

15

A.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

I

don't

remember which article.

just recall

there

had been

16

I

17

said

18

kind of psychological problem or

19

implying

20

concern

21

it,

22

really

23

telling me

24

document what

25

I'm sorry,

that

I

212-26 7-6868

there was

that
that

I

that

there

night and

realized
was

said

no

so

was
as

I

he

what was
I

had

the

that

anything,
cause

was

that

I

captain was
and

told

lieutenant

captain.

So

for

reading

going on
the

I

had no

no

that was missing

writing what

the

report

at

I

didn't
--

some point

VERlTEXT REPORTll\:G COMPANY
www .veritcxt.com

516-608-2400

Page 334
1

C.
I

was

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

when

3

realized

4

important enough

5

put

6

read was

something

7

suicidal

or

8

out

9

only as

the

that wasn't

that

the

reviewing

in

to

there,

I

a

I

think

that

I

and

deemed

the

10

i f he was

11

more

stressful

12

then

I

13

status

14

Someone

15

then

16

may

17

qualifier

the

last

said he
that,

time

I

happened after

that date,

only as

could find

a

never
it

that

if

left
is

something

saw him,
on

of

had

his

few

mental

days

ago.

out very upsetting and

themselves

not have been

but

I

saw him and

I

comment on any

was

of

acting differently or

can't

it

report

that my evaluation

good as

I

delayed entry and

something like

part

kill

folder

make

there.

M.D.

in

and

three

days

their mind and

had not initially been

18

Q.

Did you

19

discussions

with anybody

20

entry,

21

MS.

22

reported.

A.

24

Q.

about making

this

recall.

25

any

Objection.

23

have

that

delayed entry?

this

ever

earlier

212-267-6868

I

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

don't believe

Did you

I

did.

I

don't

talk with your

YERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 335
C.

1

2

supervisors

3

A.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

about making
I

don't

4

supervisor always

5

probably

6

M.D.

this

think

I

entry?

did.

know my

that.

8

I t was made

folder.

So he

some point and saw

a

year after

the

event?

A.

9

10

reviewed that at

Q.

7

rev1ews my

I

reviewed

Yeah,
i t at

Q.

11

12

with

13

actually

I

some point,

think Dr.

as

well

Did you ever have

15

A.

I

have

no

about

any discussion

entry?

14

Propper and Knour

Knour

idea.

this

I

delayed

don't

remember.
Q.

16

Did you

17

with

anybody at

18

the

ever

have

any discussion

delayed entry?
that

81st Precinct about

19

A.

No,

I

20

Q.

Did ever have

did not.

21

with

anybody employed by

22

York

about

this

any discussion
the

City of New

delayed entry?

23

MS.

24

Objection.

25

you've had with

212-267-6868

this

PUBLICKER METTHAM:
Not including conversations
legal

counsel.

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPA!\Y
www .vcritcxt.com

51660R-2400

Page 336
1

C.

A.

2

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

Right.

3

conversations

4

not

have

any

Q.

5

with

M.D.

Not including
legal

counsel

other discussions
Wait a

6

conversations

7

minute,

and

with

I

anybody.

excluding

that you may

have

did

any

had with any

lawyers?

8

A.

Right.

9

Q.

Did you ever discuss

10

delayed entry with

11

City

of

anybody working for

the

New York?

A.

12

this

I t would be

13

met with

IAB

14

conversation was

15

folder

16

go

the

after

Q.

What

today,

17

do

18

here

19

discussing

20

who

21

other

22

your

is

an

over my

folder

folder

when

if

that

i f going over my

I

would have.

was

to

in

case

that date,

I

want

to

you

have

a

this

know

yes,

is

the

I

sitting

recollection

delayed entry with

employee of

than maybe

then

City

conversations

of

anybody

of New York,
you

had with

lawyer?

23

MS.

24

Objection.

25

A.

212-267-6868

I

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

just answered

that.

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.corn

I

do

not

516-608-2400

Page 337
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

have

3

you

4

reviewed

the

5

The date

of

that

6

the

~s

after

7

would have discussed i t with

is

recollection.
recall

I

date

What

some point

Q.

8
9

any

M.D.

case

I

you

11

folder
is

in

I

with

the

made

am

recall.

done.

I

telling
I

IAB Group 1.

case

folder.

that entry,

If

then

I

them.

am not asking you

you would have

10

that at

I

about what

am asking about what

difference?

12

MS.

13

want

14

you

15

with

to
if

her

18
19

understand

the

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

give
i t was

MR.
in

you

her

her

file,

before or

If you

she

after

can

tell

she met

IAB.

16
17

Do

inferences
MR.

answer,

I'm not
or your

KRETZ:

She's

interested
arguments--

given you

an

Nat.
MR.

20

SMITH:

21

what you

22

inferences

23

draw more

24

Q.

I

recall.

I
We

just want

based on
inferences

want

to

can

to

facts

always

know

facts.

25

SMITH:

draw

and we

can

based on more

know what you

know

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPAI\Y

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 338
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

about discussing

3

this

M.D.

delayed entry with

anybody?

4

MS.

5

Objection.

6

MR.

KRETZ:

She's

7

MR.

SMITH:

I

A.

8

9
10

at

I

only

some point

I

recall

answered

think
at

that.

she has

some point

reviewed all my notes

with

IAB

11

Q.

12

recollection

13

A.

14

Q.

15

A.

16

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

But you don't
sitting here

have

a

today

No.
of discussing?
I

don't recall

before or after

17

Q.

18

sitting here

19

with

I

made

Do you have

if

that was

that entry.
a

recollection

of discussing

the delayed entry

IAB?

20

MS.

21

Objection.

22

A.

23

full

24

it if

25

No.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

I

recall

discussing

the

case and that would have been part of
that

Q.

conversation was
All

right,

after

thank you.

that date.
I

think

I

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 339

1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

understand what you're

3

ever

4

Schoolcraft?

5

A.

M.D.

6

speak with

telling me.

anybody

No.

We

from

Did you

the media

never

speak

to

So you

never

spoke

about

the

media.

7

Q.

8

anybody

9

right?

Okay.
from

the media

10

A.

Q.

Continue

Schoolcraft,

Correct.

11

about

to

12

the

delayed

you

have

entry.

13

THE WITNESS:

14

I

15

Q.

16

reading

Do

where

l e f t off?
The

writer's

first

sentence

ends

with

in

memory.

17

A.

Undersigned.

18

Q.

Undersigned's

19

Can you

20

A.

go

on

from

From

i f MOS

there,

Captain

asked

22

because he

23

should be

about MOS's

24

AWOL,

answering phone

25

answering door

needed

right.

there?

21

not

was

memory,

suicidal
to

Lauterborn

or depressed

know how

concerned

safety given

of home,

calls,

but his

his

they
going

not
car was

YER!TEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritcxt.com

516-608-2400

Page 340
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

et cetera.

2

there,

3

last

4

time he

5

asymptomatic.

6

expressed

7

never went AWOL before and acted

8

was

acting on

9

his

suicide risk

saw MOS

I

at

I

M.D.

PES

informed captain
on 10/27/09

that

and at

I

that

looked okay and reported being
At no

thoughts

time had he

of

suicide,

10/31/09.

ever

but he

also

the way he

My assessment of

is
If

saw him.

only as

good as

something happened after

10

time

11

and led him to be

12

without permission an hour before

13

his

14

cetera.

15

reasonable

16

not

17

the

last

present circumstances.

tour,

upset that he

left work
the end of

said he had stomach pains,
Then

I

am unable

to

for

I

suicidal

et

say with any

amount of certainty

at risk

18

so

that he

ideation

is

under

provided captain with basic

19

information about

reason MOS was

20

restricted duty.

That he had significant

21

physical

of

22

symptoms,

23

Unclear

24

10/27/09 when he

25

went away without

212-267-6868

symptoms

stress

cardiac symptoms,

i f MOS was

on

insomnia,

GI

et cetera.

reporting openly on

said all

of his

treatment.

symptoms

Motivation

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

to

516-608-2400

Page 341
1

C.
is

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

minimize

that he

3

psychological

4

during

5

and all

6

sessions.

7

about being on psychological

8

duty.

did not want

9

stomach pains

evaluation,

symptoms
When

in

to be
He was

restricted duty.

initial

His

M.D.

open

but denied any

subsequent monitoring

also expressed being upset
restricted

reporting on 10/31/09
severe enough

to

that he

had

warrant

10

leaving work before end of

tour without

11

permission

the

12

never did go

away or

13

10/31/09 due

to

14

something.

It

15

was

medical

cause for

16

the

angry manner

17

suggests

18

my name.

suggests

a

either

his
is

symptoms

they reoccurred on
being

really upset about

also possible
the

cause and I

21
22

Q.
any

OSTERMAN:

--

Had you,
thoughts

2890.

when you prepared this

23

note,

24

be

that

25

Schoolcraft on October

there was

litigation about what happened

2!2-267 -6868

signed

0284

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

MR.

and

20

but

left work

MS.

19

there

stomach pain,

in which he

psychological

that

31,

going

to

to

2009?

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

5!6-608-2400

Page 342

C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

MS.

3

Objection.

4

A.

M.D.

I

5

to

refer

6

redacted

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

don't

to my

remember.

full

notes,

I

would have

including

information.

7

Q.

When did i t f i r s t

8

A.

I

9

Q.

You

10

A.

I

11

Q.

Had you been named as

don't recall.
don't

recall?

don't recall.

12

defendant

in

those

13

Nelson

of

the

as

occur

14

MS.

15

A.

time

lawsuits
of

this

Howard and

delayed entry?

Objection.

16

two

a

17
18

think

19

when

I
they

Q.

20

this more

Howard
Actually,

that.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

21

entry like

22

like

don't
first

I

am really not

remember

sure.

the dates

of

I

those

started.

Have you ever made
this

recent than

~n

a

patient's

a

delayed

file

or file

this?

23

MS.

24

Objection.

25

A.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

Yes.
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 343
1

C.

Q.

2
3

entry of

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

M.D.

Have you ever made
over

a

4

Objection.

6

A.

delayed

year?

MS.

5

a

If

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

I

7

year

later

I

8

have

people who

9

that

long,

was

reviewing

mean,
have

a

case

typically we don't
their

cases

unless

they're put

If

refuted and

I

open all

in

10

disability.

11

there

was

12

clear

in my mind,

13

don't

recall.

14

for

certainty.

Q.

15
16

you don't

17

I

over a

information missing

I

So

I

that was

would have

don't

recall

the answer

to

remember ever doing

realized
very

added i t .
with

I

any

is

my question

right?

18

MS.

19

Objection.

20

testified

21

Q.

delayed entry

23

other

than

That's

not what

she

to.
have you ever made

that was

this

A.

I

25

Q.

You don't

do

delayed by a

a
year,

one?

24

212-267-6868

before,

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

Well,

22

this

not

recall.
recall

ever

VERJTEXT REPORTING COMPAI\'Y
www .veritext .com

doing

it

516-608-2400

Page 344
C.

1

2

before,

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

right?

Is

3

MS.

4

A.

6

Q.

saying?

entries

7

that what you're

Objection.

5

M.D.

8

year,

I

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

definitely made delayed

I'm talking about a

delay of a

Doctor?
MS.

9

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

10

and answered.

11

A.

Asked

12

more

Typically,

than

Q.

13

a

years

is

they're

14

for

15

question.

16

recollection of making a

17

year

18

other

My question

is,

this

typically open

do you have

a

delayed entry of a
year ever before,

entry?

19

MS.

20

Objection.

21

She's

22

harassing my witness.

23

to

answer

24

Q.

Go

25

A.

I

212-267-6R6R

not open

irrelevant to my

or approximately a
than

are

year
Whether

6, 000

cases

PUBLICKER METTHAM:
You've

asked this

answered i t twice.

one more

twice.

Stop

I'll

allow her

time.

ahead.
don't have

any

recollection of

VER!TEXT REPORTI\IG COMPANY
www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 345
C.

1
2

M.D.

that.

Q.

3

4

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

this

Thank you.

Why did you make

delayed entry?

5

MS.

6

Objection.

7

can

8

A.

I

9

Q.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

You

answer

10

what

the

11

You

Asked and answered.
again

for

the

third

did already answer

that.

answered i t before

entry was.

time.

I

knew

i t again?

A.

12

Okay.

case

Because

13

the

14

left all

15

focused

my

16

duty,

focused

17

from Captain

18

he

19

and

20

about what

21

had

22

interviews
he

24

concerns

That my

notes,

I

I

reviewing

that

I

notes

was

had
were

on pager

on getting information

I

on

about what was

did not

were

that

saying

about

that

articles
I

and

the

or

that

and

that

implying

the

department

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPA~Y
www .veritext.com

I

or

said there

suicidal

on

report

Lauterborn

news

not

go~ng

adequately

told Captain

definitely

of

when

answer

Lauterborn and documenting what

awareness

was

kind

212-267-6~68

realized

realized

some

was

I

reporting

23

25

and

I

that out.

of

were

was
I

folder

So why don't you

was

had no

department
ignored

516-608-24[)()

Page 346

C.

1

2

that

3

realized

4

there

5

That was

6

the entry.

7

the

10

that was
I

was

never

the

very

documented

that

clear

I

noted

the

I

felt

the

in my mind.

So

there's

date

a

that

media

that

So

report.

don't

Schoolcraft matter

I

I

added

added

report

triggered

about
this

right?
No.

realizing

The entry was

12

my

13

I t probably came

14

because

15

mischaracterized in

16

realized

17

the

18

entry.

19

but because

20

realized

I

this

i t was

this

been

the media and

because
of

of

then

the

information was

22

inconsistent with

23

in

that

the media

reviewing

Information

the media,

had all

I

never properly documented in

Not because

that

missing.

to my attention more

and so

in

triggered by

information was

realized

folder

Q.

So when

case.

I

A.

21

the

I

entry.

entry,

11

not

M.D.

something missing from

Q.

8

9

and

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

I

made

the

reports,

case

folder,

I

missing.

that was

what was

being described

correct?

24

MS.

25

Objection.

212-267-6868

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

YER1TEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.corn

516-608-2400

Page 347
C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

A.

Correct.

3

Q.

Am

M.D.

I

correct

that you made

4

delayed entry based exclusively on

5

this

content of memory?

6

A.

Yes.

7

Q.

You didn't have

the

B

paperwork

9

making

any

other

that reflected or aided you

this

in

entry?

10

A.

No.

11

Q.

Can you

12

entries

13

A.

Yes.

at 22:35

continue

reading

the

dated 10/31/09?
The

next page

of

the page

that

starts

15

says

regarding

16

10/31/09.

17

with Captain Lauterborn.

18

key because

landlord heard footsteps.

19

said he was

sleeping whole

20

possible with

21

yelling

they were doing outside before going

22

in with

the key

23

I t was

24

sergeant called him back and denied him the

25

sick leave,

212-2n7-n86S

At 22:35

Adrian Schoolcraft
hours

the amount

to make

bad scene.

but

top

the entry

14

P.O.

hours,

is

telephone

contact

Made entry using

time,

but

He
not

of banging and

sure he

was

okay.

He had admitted that

that he

left

the

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPAI\'Y
www .veritext.com

command

516-608-2400

Page 348
C.

1

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

anyway.

3

concerned because he

4

didn't know why he

5

way.

6

one was

ever

7

quote.

Let me

8

didn't

say

9

used.

He

M.D.

Captain explained that

MOS

said,

says

sick

l e f t in

quote,

they
and

such

a

were

they
huff

why worried when

worried about me before,
correct,

those

were

refused

to

10

saying he

11

ambulance,

12

pressure very high

13

him

14

so

15

that

Captain

end

Lauterborn

the exact words
go

to

no

he

command and kept

refused.

go

high,

EMTs

to
not

Q.

16

17

to

didn't

feel

well.

took his
170

hospital

vitals.

over

called

Blood

120.

EMT wanted

because blood pressure

optional,

What does

Captain

MOS

agreed,

that mean

but

then

not

optional?

18

MS.

19

Objection.

20

A.

21

believed

22

that he

23

and

that

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

My understanding
that his

that

blood pressure was

absolutely had
i t was

is

to

go

to

the EMT
so

high

the hospital

not optional.

24

Q.

Please

25

A.

MOS

continue.

agreed,

but

then

refused.

He

VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868

www .veritext.com

516-608-2400

Page 349
1

C.

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

2

ran back

inside

and had

3

and forcibly

4

asked a

5

said MOS

said he wanted to

6

would go

to

7

couldn't allow

8

was

taken

follow-up

to

to

be

strapped down

Jamaica

question

ER on own

M.D.

the

Hospital.

about

that and he

sleep at home and
next day,

but EMT

that because blood pressure

so high.
Chief Marino was

9

11

in every way.

Chief gave him so much

12

but MOS

control

13

for

14

father

15

yelling.

16

or

17

at MOS.

18

of

19

doesn't

20

likelihood.

21

Jamaica

22

Q.

supervisors.

to

on

I

very disrespectful

with

Whole

cell phone,

time

Father

the

Hospital

with

father

yelling at MOS
He

said not

angry about NYPD's

handling

accurate
Top

room,

disregard

talking

situation.

and other situations
have

total

could hear

asked i f he was

him about

this

was

and

suspended him.

out of

MOS

there

10

23

I

of

of MOS.

information

the

in

next page.

Father
all
MOS

at

now.

Hold on

a

second

I

need

to

find

that page.

24

MS.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

25

MR.

SMITH:

212-267 -68()X

And

is

0288.

i t also

VER1TEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veri tcxt.com

in

516-608-2400

Page 350
C.

1

2

the

LAMSTEIN-REISS,

regular production?
MS.

3
4

looking.

5
6

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

definitely
MR.

7

are

I

don't know,

but i t ' s

on 0288.
SMITH:

MS.

The documents

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

produced the

files

10

Numbers

as

11

That

how

12

The file

bearing

13

are what

I

14

of

is

the

the

event.

17

with

the

that

I

29

complete file

never

Bates

of

PES.

they're maintained by

IAB.

the D Bates Number

produced as

PES

SMITH:

is

representative

file.

MR.

15
16

I'm

produced are out of order.

8
9

M.D.

So

Okay.

Well,

in

any

that entry

MR.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

19

MR.

KRETZ:

20

MS.

PUBLICKER METTHAM:

It's

on

18

21

However

22

the

23

from at

an

IAB note

relevant portion
this

that

2 94 6.

that

she's

covers
reading

time.

MR.

24

25

there's

2946.

Q.

212-267-6868

SMITH:

That explains

that.

All

right.

So

a

let's

VER!TEXT REPORTING COMPANY
www .veritext.com

take

look

516-608-2~-00

EXHIBIT B

..

0

Cl
~~

...)

Vl

0

:r:

()

.~I
,_,

:c
u

~~

1--

>Vl

u

.;
Cl

0..

I •

Q

~~

w..

w

....

Tl

U.l

z

':::
Ill

"/.

u

0

::J

:r:
,..

'/1

=

. I

"
u

n
''I
i.:'J

C1
1!_1

0

f!',

"/.

ld
,,_
"I
''·
:JJ

...)

i··

""
1_/;

:J

0.
n

...J

.,

0

J:

(l

:;:
,,
·,.

~

I

")

;· I
l

Ill

~

cJ
•.

'

~-

:r,

w

I
I

f··

"'

~

j

'

'

(.1

:·~l

')

'"
~-

"'

I.

'

(1

(:
'J

''
:' l

!'·

,.
'

..

'

:

'/

', .

. I
'I

'

'

1:1

2i2l/ I0 - Timeline of PES contacts with P.O. Adrian Schoolcraft

4/13/09- MOS·referred to PES by District Surgeon Dr. Ciuffo for acute anxiety secondary to
stress on job. Dr. Lamstein at PES interviewed MOS on same day. MOS complained of chest
pains for over one year, stomach problems and trouble sleeping. There were no medical findings.
PO Schoolcraft had been to an emergency room, and was prescribed psychotropic medications
by his personal physician. Work problems were cited- getting below standards evaluations due to
low activity; told to write more summonses and 250s that he disagreed with; claimed that he was
assigned to a footpost in front of a building that generates lawsuits against cops. He alleged that
other officers wrote false summonses. He hired a lawyer to fight his low evaluation. At Dr.
Lamstein's request, PO Schoolcraft signed releases of information to speak with the physician
who prescribed the medication, and to get records from the emergency room visit.

4/14/09- Dr. Lamstein discussed the case with Dr. Propper, supervising psychologist at PES.
MOS placed on restricted duty due to his anxiety symptoms and use of psychotropic
medications.

4/15/09- Dr. Lamstein spoke with MOS and informed him of psych R/D decision. MOS was
not happy with the decision. MOS verbally withdrew releases of information he had signed. Dr.
Lamstein asked him to put that request in writing as well.

5/22/09- MOS rescinded the ROI in writing in a formal legal statement signed by a notary.
7/27/09- Dr. Lamstein met with MOS at PES. He reported that he no longer felt stressed about
:mything, and that every one of his physical symptoms of stress was completely beUer. He
denied taking medication for any reason. He said things were better at work since he was on
restricted duty because he was left alone, was not getting written up, and they could no longer
stick him on a foot post "in front of the most dangerous building in the precinct," or force him to
do overtime. Dr. Lamstein urged PO Schoolcraft to get stress management counseling, and at the
officer's request recommended two books.
10/13/09- Dr. Propper received a call from Sgt. Bonilla in the Police Commissioner's office
informing PES that MOS' father called "City Hall" and complained to a Deputy Mayor's
assistant that his son was never told why he is on RID.
10/27/09- Dr. Lamstein returned from vacation and met with MOS to make sure he was clear
about the reason he is on R/D. Dr. Lamslein again explained in detail that he was on restriclfll _ _ _ _ __
duty because he had significant physical manifestations of stress that were causing distress, and
that he would benefit from treatment. He continued to report that he no longer had physical
symptoms of stress and no longer felt stressed at work. He said he called therapists Dr.
Lamslein had recommended, but none took his insurance. Dr. Lamstein offered to help him find
an in-network therapist who specializes in stress management, and be expressed appreciation for
that assistance. Dr. Lamstein soon mailed him a list of psychologists in his preferred location
who accepted his insurance and specialized in anxiety and stress management.

NYC00002:395

)

.J

10/31/09- Dr. Lamstein was the psychologist on pager duty when MOS went AWOL. Capt.
Lauter born, MOS' XO at the 81 Pet .. kept Dr. Lamstein informed throughout the night. Capt.
Lauterborn reported underlying issues with MOS at the command that might have precipitated
his going AWOL. He said MOS had made allegations against others and the Department's
investigation of those allegations had picked up that week. About 4 PO's and 2 civilians were
called down for questioning that week. Notifications were in telephone message log so MOS
knew who was going. He went up to them upon their return, trying to get information from them
about what they were asked. While MOS was still missing, Dr. Lamstein left a message on
MOS · cell phone urging him to call her or his Captain, or return to his home or command.

11/2/09- Dr. Lamstein received a call from Sgt. DeGrabrizio, lAB Group 31. Dr. Lamstein
provided general information about MOS and the reason he is on psych RID.

11/2/09- Dr. Lamstein received a caJI from MOS' father, Larry Schoolcraft. He yelled
throughout the conversation in an accusatory, threatening and insulting tone of voice. He was
angry because of the events of 10/31. He vaguely threatened legal action and hung up on Dr.
Lamstein.
ll/4/09- Dr. Lamstein received a call from Sgt. Scott, JAB Group I. Sgt. said he interviewed
MOS at Jamaica Hospital and PO Schoolcraft signed a release of information authorizing the
hospital to release information to the NYPD. Sgt. reported that MOS' father was still alleging
that Dr. Lamstein never told MOS why he is on RID.
-Dr. Lamstein returned a call from MOS' father, Larry Schoolcraft. He was polite and
friendly during this call. He said they just had a meeting at the hospital at 2 PM which he had
hoped Dr. Lamstein would be able to attend. Dr. Lamstein said that she would be happy to speak
with MOS' treatment providers at the hospital as long as PO Schoolcraft signed a release of
information authorizing it. He thanked Dr. Lamstein and ended the call courteously.
ll/9/09- Dr. Lamstein spoke with Jamaica Hospital, Christine McMahon, MSW after a few
days of leaving each other messages. She said MOS refused to sign a release of information
allowing NYPD to release information to the hospital. She said MOS was discharged on 1116109
with a follow-up plan of a scheduled appointment with a psychiatrist. She said he had some
weird beliefs but was not a danger to himself or others.
-OF. Bffi!!btB 1@2@16@6 9 Ehii lfdhi IA:B Gi&&p t. Sgt. Scott and'Lt.--Crjs;:-::.a:liJl~t.-----·
They reported that they went to MOS' home on 11/6 after he was discharged from the hospital.
MOS told lAB that he was kept at Jamaica Hospital because a counselor there used to work at
the NYPD and is in cahoots with the NYPD, and the Department wanted him kept there. He hau
many digital recording devices in his home. He provided recordings to lAB as evidence of what
he said was mistreatment by the NYPD on 10/31/09. The recordings included his side of phone
conversations with his father and revealed that he had a rifle in his home (despite being on .. no
firearms" status) and was concerned that the NYPD might ask him to go to a hospital to take a
drug test.

NYC00002896

l

11/30/09- Dr. Lam stein spoke with JAB Group 1, Lt. Crisalli. Confinned that lAB did recover
the rifle.
12/1109- At the request of Lt. Mascol of the 81 Pet., Dr. Lamstein tried calling MOS with the
hope that perhaps he would return the call. This was part of ongoing efforts to notify MOS to
report to 1PP for reinstatement. It was unsuccessful.
l/19/10- Dr. Lamstein received a release of information from Fulton-Montgomery VA Primary
Care Practice. It requested PES send them ''last office notes" and a medication list. It said MOS
had an appointment scheduled with them on 1(20/10. On 1/20/01, Dr. Lam stein spoke with
Louis at the YA clinic and explained that PES only saw MOS for an evaluation of his
psychological fitness to perform police work and that PES were not treatment providers. He did
not think they needed this type of records.

NYC0000:2897

~<ete1ve<1·

Fa~:

uct

14

tu1u

n·oo~"

O~:;t

1d 2010 11:06am POOI/JC

ii
,,

I

4: /"oAclriCJ/J '-'cA=/c/Bf+

1

'

-7/c -c r::;e.tJ.<"-.._f?bt_
A'~ e3d;0·7At. bft /,.~.lorJ. ~

1-'
.
/,

_

__ /

/'f?.

~h: "":"""'-- sl~ ._;~-fiA:.

A~ /'-5),~ ~~It, ifc _ .

~·

"'.e--..

.&fr }o

~.o"'*:~ .

,fof~ ~

'7 .f'/'7

"~

?'/ ~ ~~?!<.

_.4. "". . ~

c-4 J<.~

~,L__,.=~-

~IVr'nnnn"looo

'

NYC00002900

<,

,,
'

"t'c s~L.,._p,~l'n

,
,
•if' 1/"')o.J cL,~-} ~ .7-:J ~f,""
q 7J
it £U( c.J«,.._ / - - - - . ~ ~/'"'"f~ h -;7 ..-I
ij

li

eo.,=="'~~;.~~/ <Toi..;/J~

~~~ ~,_,;-

!i

i!/ur
:!

<-42,

,67,

~

.

J//7- ~'-'e-Tc£,_.. .pI~~ ~.>J.r4' A
~ .od 1Yfr7 1M ->_;tf-.:r M oJ?'~ .z~

/U &Jro/<- j:1.:A-

!: _,-;.,/" ).,._

ji

~_.J,;vr.7,

7'

-4"7/

'""'··f-

4

j,Jh_

U/}~

/JJ J~

/'.0.4;_

5_?!'-

~'? ~~

L ,..,~
II~.
•1<g://"'J','o-o '1"-#-. ~ /"
11•-J c4 .r qfC..:.u/.;;.J-Y'fr ~ / ~ '""-.d/ <1.6~
jp- .,.,,,.., /'~ ~ c~ 4,~/l forf-~,;,.,~ •
;Jfv<,..-

/7oJ

¥.

il'f .;.,

ir<'f/

j;{-.r ~ ..~A;- ..v!JJ;-t;-<Mio-u ,.......,_ ,)-, P:.<4;~'-<.
7 /!J s- ,L 4--.....- Jo ..... .$·':,1, uJ., ~ ,-r: . /

; ·~-ft-d-Jlif'~~ ~ ..bd-~~

i

-:/"'? ""-- I IJo-Jr,_"" ~ ~ ,c;a;

; ~ ~_f;?ifi-"P'~ k

(f,

~
~

_fLo

~

'-'..<'4

;, I<·~.~ #<?J

I

NYC00002901

NYC00002902

I
fo/:ZJfo"f-

'"'P7/>"?-

./1•!

7/c

~ C-<-';jt,

4

~ ,,_._,~,.,~ --<'-;6,

~~

z- h=_,

~ J ~·~ r'l--.4 :7
~ . _.,
Pu'<4"/L.C<. { L~ l~ce>..j~J c.£;, ~~~-/,._ k.,a
~

,-M..o

if

.4""7 / .q-~ ~}+, ~ ck~ ~
L .. //J·,_.a- ;t- ,.-. ~ '· "'?" #--1 :J- ~~_..:r-,~...

Sj"C'e.i _d-..,

L ,

ch Ctl::;::,

d ~ ~ /...c. A

;4.,~J~k<.AW,>/foM,

""'' Lr.J,:. ~~ ~ ~ ~6#/

,,

~:/--oolr,

ii
\I
[,

li
·I

II

il
li

if

I·

li
I,

I•

'i
'•

il
''•·
'I

J[
;i

!

•I

'I

,I
.,

:I

"

....._

•,..-,

~ • .r~­
C

~/'J'...,P

EXHIBIT C

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

!\fiUIAtl ·\,CARDOZO

I UO Cl !\ <R< 'II STRI! I
ri'Rk Nf II Y<IR~ l<J1Jii7

!rsu1<11:i' -•rp,.r,iil-·1•

~[; W

I mall

!'hnn~

(_-,I,

Ll•-

B\ HAND DELIVEHY
Nathaniel Smnh
.lllornc) for 1'/,,inrrjt
Ill !!roadway. Suite 1305
Ne" York, New York 10006
IZe: Schoolcraft'. The (~tl' oJ__\c" ).vrL.~t_aL
10 CV 6005 tRWSJ
Counsel.
Lncloscd plea'e also find the origmal transcript t(Jr Dr. Catherine Lamstcin, Psv D. in
addition to her ciTata sheds and trc.nsnipt signatme page

Enc:.
Sincerely yours.

Stuanna Puhlicker V1ettham
ilssisranf Corporation ( 'm;njt-1
Spcclall'cdcral LttJgatton J)i, is""'
("(

John R.ldomislt (By I land lklitc·rt· w.'o I ranscnpl)
\L\K Ill\ C1 I .11n1 :\II .I( A. 1311.1 II I'
.-l!torneysfur .Jamaica f-lo.'lflilld . \·!edicai ( 'cntef
IJ!Cf.·.>n

220 least 42nd Street 13th Fluor
l\c\\ Yotk. NY 10017
llrtc<n Lee iBv 1-trst-Cla,,: I\hil w1c· Transcript)
1\'0NF, DFVINF & JF:--.ISFJ\, Ll P
.1ttorncr,\ for Or lsak !stJkol'
21101 :-..-tan.:us /\venue. Suitt' NIOO
Lak~

Success.

N~w

York II 0·12

1

: ·,

April 24.2014

~·~

"''·I•

'tlltttii.H'!l'u l.1•1 :1•

1~~,
'"~~·-''

r1··

!1Juccl\!. Hrach (lh liandDcliv,;r\ llt>TiilllSCI'ipli
C.\LL\N. KOSI LR.BRADY & llRJ \NAN. LLP
.·lilon-w_\S fur I tlhi.in .. lldanu-Uenllr'l'
l Whitehall StrcTI
New York, 1\c\\ York I0004
Walter A. Krell. Jr (By Hand Deli1·ery wio Transcript)
SCOPI'E ITA SI.IFF KRFT/ & ABERCROMBIE
. I!!OI'IIL'L'

44,~

lm

JJcit'ndunr J/uuricllu

1\ladison A1enue, 30th 1-loor
I' cw YorJ.., "'Y 10022

All' 24 /U' 4

~I]

jUvn

1\pr 2J 2C'·I1 :·1-.J 1 D:ll

Fa:c.11181!10ER9

~age

C.

l

A.

2

LAMSTEIN--REISS,

person's

duty statu•

4

Lold

the

rea3on

5

on

a

nQQd

to

G

Tt~ey

just

need to

1

rostr.l.~ted

vu

ru

!

for

know

duty

"S.

8

10

o~f

M.D

at

it.

ba~is

tbut

That'~

and

that

CATHERINE

what's
h~'g

what'a

not

on

x~co~d

GOL"d

And

M!TTHAH

yo1.1

ThZ:S.nk.

7. 4'1

{~----~~t;.o-'" ";_~;.-<1f- /~~-.

11

~qain

po~nt

PUBLIC~ER
th~

They're not

ch~nqe,

knov

(~·""'"'

.,

l 1

J76

No.

3

9

fC:U~ilL

p

m

/-', .. ,/.
.~

...

LAHSTEIN~RE!SS, ~./}'; ,/)

13

14

15

Subscribed

and

sworn

to

befox-e me

th1e

16
17

day

2014

of

18
Nota.cy

19
20

P\lblic
MARIL""'-~ TO~n::S

)1

~Ql,;Hy " · ' ' '

22

-~·il

c . ............... ,\

"l(; ) 1 C( -J<.'..: f: -;\,.'
OJ,.,·,~o 1r '
·,~o. :_"t'f'
C;nn.,di(.l():\ti'!\1!-,dn

2.0 r ~

;·1

23
24

25

VERITEXT REPORTlNG COMPANY
211 26HS6S

www vceutext.com

\)6-608-2400

,:G i U

P~ge

)"./9

WITNESS'S CORRECTION SHEET
2

PAGE \

3

LINE \

COKRKCTICN

i, ..,_.:

4

'

'

L·~--~-:

'/

;

,i-f

__·

J./- , / . -

./

...

/
•'

6

'

..~

.. '

t)

'I

-· ·-

8

c

1.

"

J.-1 r_,.

c~·

10

'

I.J)

J

1.

.J

,,

Cl

11

j-1'~

).;.-

;...·:

"•+'

<---I

-\

'!

,'

,_)

'

j

'

~

/J

..-......

1 }

1

~

16

·-

i

14

---·

.. .,.

...... '?
!

lB

l,(,

L.~-t

f

~

"

,.

'

'

J

I ,,.-~

'" ·r

I' .

,.

'

I 7

;.

;

"-

.,

-,~~-:

""' /i''.

'
I7

' ~~·-

.-

~

_/-(
/' ---

o.f<

~vorrt

t0

;

!
·i.

w'

:.J.~~

_.;_.'-"!,

' '

~

__,__._

._--.·_J:.,.)

'

. ..,...:..

.•

r::

-

~·

)

C:··· 1 1,., 1

,,

i

--~-1

1 9

20

22

Sub5cribed sn£i

23

t.b1.s

:~-' { -~--~-

24

I .

25

',•_ '

~,.l.><_

N.·r.~r-,

du.y

b~foro

me
~0)4

of
Notary

Putd

l

c

,'•N .-,

-'..,.,

) I6 ti08-2-lil0

N~FD

~.,.

PSVCH

Por 14 ·,J14 O:;

'71~l6U'!:;a~

J1~m

'ILH

;~ ~-~1D -~

Paqe

1

WITNESS'S
PAG~

2

\

LINE \

CORRECTIO~

JLrr:

PG:rJ;'f

379

SHEET

CORRECTION

4

5
6
/I

~,

0

8

,
,._;.; /c.:.

10
...__,

''' . !I ..,..
/t

I

12

I

'1,·

1'1·?

""'-- 't'

13

1'"1

;:J.o

14

:s
16

t7
19

20

22

9uboro•had and

rlR..y

23
·. _ _/;'\

24
;_~

N.J;,,ry

sworn

t•~•'r,'-·

,·:·.
'•Q

~

0,;.,.. \-\_

to bator• me

2014

of

\f\.._,_, __..

1

Not_,\f

y

Pub I

.lr~

' . ..,,,_-~
• ·,,_,_,..

~·-,rll.

,z; •.

~)•;d• ; ' '
~' '
~~~·~~~~., :-'"·'"' ~:O..l•·C~ ,.t:l
·;6/ 686~

n :'

VEKJ1LXT RFPORTI:\0

CO~IHNY

'; 16

(l~Jti

;: ·101.1

WITNESS
2

PAGE
/·',

r

'

6

\

LINE

\

I, '"4.L /I ,,·

/.:,· ·:1

•'

S

CORRECTION SHEET

CORRECTION

/7

• .y:.;_--·

,j.·
.-r,

1.~

1 '/I

t

8

7

. J ..d --1-

/
~

/CO

17?

I

. !:""{

I-;: r

I

-I~ I Fl

9

,,,., '""

10

(

-,

'

' '

;

I 4

...

•

;:1
;.'.'

"'
·'

"'

-~

'
l,c

'fo
q

,';

..

"'

I;'.<(_

~

;

"
'
,,,
I

,,

h._,

/

H

I

( }

{ l1 ,. ,

-·

.... -·

I'

·6

l;

!

y

l

.,.

1 g

I
· ,\n!'F.RINE

/0

23

'::._h

j_ _J

(
_, 1·· r,,~_

"}_ ··\

·.....

L~·

I,I\MSTEIN REISS

(__

_ .. _
~. (_••

w:-u.

'

rs-i' ,D

2Cl4

....

-····

,'

'c'

J

516 60&-:tAOU

Paq" 379
1

2

WITNESS'S CORRECTION
PAGE

LINE \

\

lv...z

{q 7,

3

SB~ET

CORRECTION

s

l'o

_..!·t-t

.J

I·
·' ' .· i '··' ."-« 6 :

5
6

fk
.~
('

9

/·

9

Z-_C?

~- _L~ _/o/--il:;J~f::?~J_:': ~::/:~ .Jf'~~;~_'_r._z...r.~ ~~

) 'Sr
~.i -~--

""'

(

'/
-,>/

j-,1,

'1/

.' .. ·• I

~··

I

\
I •"·(' ._,

r/,"-f·
___ ..__

;

~f./, /f

' '
""·'-1 "'4· 1,.~,. r~ ic

(."'"'· .• ·~···'
-------7 --

'/

) -·~

l,:,_e_ Iff

i

10

ll

12
1.1

14

-1
/

' ~J.• I

;;1 <.,

,, c>
'
'
(lie / .,

......
/'

'

15

~

~

"'

,,

J.

c._~J
. i

~I-.,,,

:.. . -.-.. }
l,>,l ,1:.

16
].7

18
19

20
) 1

22

SubaLribed

~nd

t~

before me

I'

dwortl

'''C.
Not.ary

VERITEXT Rt:PORT[NG COMPANY
www.veritextcom

PublLc:

516·608·24(1(1

I

1

<

WITNESS'S CORRECTION SHEET
LIN~

PAGE \

\

CORRECTION

'i_r- ·--4

~)
l •
I·-~ <-i~.,,i.....o..;~-...LI. .:.....r: ]'!)
-t>,

t

b

~

;c ..
'
......

1

.

;.

~

i

_)

-~,-_.

..: / I

A

l

'·

1,.

?

1

-

--"'

•i

~-

lb
17

,.

18

i

.7

(

f
t

·•

.., ~ .

-· '

i

j

! ' -~

I

1/ -

j

•.J·L;.i

~l

( ~_·.,.-( (::iL.:..

L·

,J (/'

~,

)

•••. ,. ,"',f-ell."::_
.

·

1, •./.~

J

'

i

£.

,

'

-

;

-~-·

c.' ~ ...

/'!w

1/l

. ·~

'

~·

-·

CA.'I',H'r~

20
.~

/

..... '

I •1<

-·

lc.

"-~ A'/

,.-. <

"I

~-

.,

--:.·~r--,_·2!_!.-. - j'"_&,,u,_J

)
I.

,.

') c:

,,

.1

---·-

l

: ,, , -!1...<'""

'

-'

/-r' '))

..

.i- _!

/----.'1
I',

15

•

''

lJ

'y

I

.:>

-1J:. ,.·. < l··-' ·_•__ L .n_, 1
..

.---

12

_,

-:)

., ''"

e:~:-

..

. '
~.r-

.'

i 'l

j, ··("

.

,,_

!

I

i

;;_j
10

(,,,

·f,,

i."'C

..

•J
j

.·lll_'_

r

'1'/}C.>
(J('

-f,)

..•

..-;

--.-----

tY

•?

(,"-<0

,/-Y'/

! "J, ,-'

H l NE

.,.·-":

/

L.AMBTP: IN

·~· '

RJ:; l ~ 3 ,

1

'

) 1

,_. _,11..,

>--~

day
-~

24

·'. ~II

1 17-

~ '. ·

~67

:•:.

•>'

tSMI

I

'.

ot·
)v\,...•,J._....

2. 0 Ul
Not'ary

.c;? ', VfR.[TIXiREP(JRTP.-<GCOMPA:\>
V..'V.W vol11:':)1.1 cc;m

Publ,1._c

'

-··

-{-

/·

fl;J

' " ',' lr/fi•J

Paq., 379

WITNESS'S CORRECTION SHEET

l

~INE

2

PAGE \

3

.j!,_;.t!_S,Ji2E
f'· ;,>; ~~ (~n~

\ CORRECTION

?-_2_,._!1<£~: /::..c ~I

4

s

-f?-•.

(, ?-Y'/I,.:.t ) . ..(.:;,:;"'::";_.,,__.).
.. ..
.f-c"""}:.-""'-1: A:,,J I~ £fw. "..,,b··>UA.,.

~~~

7.~-L_~~<;.___:i 7

:L

. .~.·:.....J'/-·(.•_1 (,~·7 L~c,.-r~.. ..._......::__~ ···t"~t~.<;.._-{..r.-,J~··~)
1

6
+o b.,;
!''-- ;J.TI 10 '--/ . ·- ,__ .f'rf'IJ.
."

6

z;.-

f'

B

/'.....1 /J... f,·"'~./1

9

fo

.;<

)

/in <-

11

.•f.-' ,I

-T

--

r;

7

i ',r~ 'f (". ._i__(/1 ~.I- !;'&:,.•, J ·~)

{.M.

) "?(_)
I' . k -,/

II

ov~-

1

f{l:..

{j.,r~fc_'.t-t'')

_).l ~. .
.

1

13

'')_

J. ~fie

-'7.;

10

:2

~
..

c~rJ.' C/" (_ fl ·•· f o v(f; d.: j
irJJ,~,> a.-?:.J :.·.:t:.;t {/!ot_ ',.[··

IE.,t_

7

i<"uJ7~

I

.[o

}
/

11
15

',.
,~~

16

! ~~:

.. ·;~

llf,

f.,,. 14

'

I

17
1

a

I·
1

'.;~

! ,,J ('

,J")

()..,

"

,, !

tN!' __!.";?

r J .'-

j_ .dl_,_, _
_,_.-'-JwJ.•M

j
If

)

;(/

l/14!.

/· :/1

.f..,( :·1~Jh'f

'

·~--G f

£

'

'

19
~

~

.

.

/ . -~-~·/ .,.t'l

.

i-l.t:TS5,

/

.H

-,,i"(

t,...~J~,·

21

23
74

this

.!, ~
i ~ ~

-

Zl'J-"26 7 -6&6!1

.

·t'o

l \ ..•
'~

\

day ot

I(

'\

'r /__.

2014
Notary Public

\ Jo-60K-2400

,_

.

I

I

-'

•t.

t .

l

Aor 24 2014
P18:CO?S3'3

~J ...

'

1

i 3lpn

f'br 7.:. lC

-~

J3. )J>Jr.". >'•J>::,.· .

l

'

'

l

Page 379
l

WITNESS'S

2
3

/•

'.

LINE

\

PAGl:

J/ -- /,,....,.
.,
......

~

6

.·u

11

') ,ll'>
. --- .

.

-;-

_;

I.

10

(j/l~

I

r"·
f

.,

.•

J"f,

..

I,/)

{

~ 'J C:

·1 o

I

.'

(J..-f-,e/

(.

i

i.)" 11

3;l. ,j·~

I

"

j;;_ 'I .,l /;AI-

3lco

1

/If

'

1
I,.,_.:!

f"/...,..)

'J

..)·

"

'

/

,,_

--.

,•

1

/~,

'·""

'{ •(

)

e,

;>·~- U.

{,,...,_

..

[,.,?,:;sf'

r

{.M!

'

,...

/..., .

-~-

:

J8

1-...,-(

-

/

16
J7

6 ,__Jf

I . ...

;J!/ (,~

I

I'

lS

r-

--

21--t

'. v

J

14

~~r~ .~:.

)

/

_!...._/;

I

13

I•

/fuf-

_j~

"l

9

I

1,..
/2

i• ,,

/< LJ I

8

~-

J;/,/ /.u..

f)

I

7

fr1

'•.;

-(t

CORRf:CTION

~----

'

'

\

CORRECTION SHEET

-r·'

'

-/'-

..,"'"·'',

flo

..

.-.

' ,..,

•' ,., f

r

) / "'f

.:l

1!1

2!
Subserib~d

22

and

day

t-.hi.s
•l. '1

'-.--";J

24
25

r \,).
·'

of

to

before me

.,

2014

\

Notary Public.

.',l{l_.,

. I:;,-~ ,. -,.- ~

No!lir·-, ·
·: ,.J

(c'T',.~.

awoJ·r~

II·.'

•.'.J!on

:.~.:ll'e.s

'"'a...,

:12-26 i-68o~

·;• '~' {

VER l TEXT REPURTING COl\1P Ar-:Y
wv,..v.·. vente:d ...:!)ffi

5l6-608-240U

~or

!I'PC PS¥Cr

24 /.!]14 ::3 32orr

Fa•.11'8160ISB9

Ope

24 201d 0].]\pm

'C'~/010

PagQ 379
1

WITNESS'S CORRECTION SHEET

2
3

4

5
6
7

9

9

10
11
l2

13

14

15
16
17

18
19

20

21
2£

SubscribQd and sworn to before me

23

thi~ 7-'1 ~~
. I; ·
...

24

day of

'. I I y,
'

L~

'

2014

, Notary Public

2 5 l'l..i;l ·L, ~ ~. f(_1>- ,-.'!: S
~OHU'f t-1:J':·',c ::!~'i' "•\tiW l'arl.
· ·~"J

~n r.J5·_~;,;~·.?c

C 1om.~~,:·,;;;~;;o·.~;:'~; 1';'<zq~ VERITEXT REPORTING COMPA;-,1
212-267-6868

www.'feritext.com

516-60S- z.IOU

EXHIBIT D

DEPARTMEN~

POLICE
CITY OF NEW YORK
M # 09-1973

Log# 09-41517

SIU# 01-14 -09

From:

Sergeant Alroy Scott, Special Investigations Unit

Date/Time:

February 15,201111600 hrs.

Allegation·

DRV-Other

Subject:

Retrieval of Police Officer Schoolcraft Department Psyche Records I
Interview of Dr. Lamstein
I

(KD1

~S/24109@

'500 HRS'''DRV-OTHER' .. Dt McGonagle, Group 1,

'

'

to~arded

I
the following compla1nt to the C/C by lax. letter

re<.~ds as follow;' PO Scn:Jo:craft. Tax# 931 I 86, 81 pel, repor1s that an urmjent1fied person from Dl Maun~ll9'_s. C 0 81 Pet,
AdmlrliStrative Staff, has reported that SJO·s Sgt We1ss, Tax t1
31 pel and Lt Caughey, Ta:~; #
81 pet, broke In and

antered. \VIIhout permission or authority, a locked office coni<Jin1ng sensitive department files. and removed documents pertaining to
Civil.an Complaints that ..... ere ins.de of Sgt Weiss's Department Personnel Folder. The source states that the files would have been
an obstacle to the evaluation an~ promo~cn of Sgt Weiss to NYPD lieutenant. Sgt We1ss has smce beer promoted to lieutenant. Dl
Grossi recommends OG back to Group 1 (KD}

On the above date and approximate time, the undersigned Investigating
Officer IS documenting retrieval of a copy of Police Officer Schoolcraft Department
Psychological Records on October 12, 2010 andla subsequent interview involving Dr.
Lamstein on October 13, 2010.
The undersigned copied Police Officer Schoolcraft
Department Psychological Records for review. Police Officer Schoolcraft's folder
contamed information relating to his initial psychological Department hiring interview
and test. Additionally the folder contained notes by Dr. Lamstein relating to her and
Police Officer Schoolcraft meetings and other department documents relating to Police
Officer Schoolcraft being assigned to Restricted Duty due ito stress an anxiety. Dr.
La. mstein w.as interviewed in an attempt to bring a better und!rstanding of Pol.ice Officer
Schoolcraft's folder.
At the start of the interview with Dr. Lam ein, she established that
Police Off1cer Schoolcraft folder contained documents pert ining to his psychological
history since h1s acceptance to the Department. She alfo stated that the folder
contained her notes that she had made after each interf,tion with Pollee Officer
Schoolcraft. Dr. Lamstein read from her notes to the un ersigned for clarity. The
following is a summation of some of the important points that ere discussed during her
and Police Officer Schoolcraft's meeting that pertained to this case.
Dr. Lamstein disclosed that her first me ting with Police Officer
Schoolcraft was on April 13, 2009. Dr. Lamstein exp~ined that Police Officer
Schoolcraft was referred to her from District Surgeon, r. Cioffo because Police
Schoolcraft was exhibiting signs of acute anxiety secondary t stress on the job.
Dr. Lamstein explained that during their fi t meeting, Police Officer
Schoolcraft informed her that he went to Forest Hills Hospita emergency room on April
3, 2009 because he felt weak at home and a thumping in his chest. She stated that
Police Officer Schoolcraft informed her that he was diagn~'sed with having a "panic
attack" and was give. nan injection of lorezapm (sedative).
r. Lam stein disc. lased that
Police Otftcer Schoolcraft informed her that he had stomach prqb!ems for the past six
(6) month's; which Included diarrhea. He also reported to her that his pnmary care
physician prescribed him seraqil. Dr. Lamstein continued to state that Police Officer
Schoolcraft Informed her that he has had trouble sleeping for about three (3) months
and complained of chest pains for about a year. Police Officer Schoolcraft informed Dr.
Lamstein that he felt run down.
Dr. Lamstein informed the undersigned that she spoke wit Police
Officer Schoolcraft about work related issues and that he dis'ctosed to her tha he was
told to write more summons and further explained that he had received a 2. on his
recent annual evaluation with a recommendation of transfer; in which he infor ed her
that he has appealed. She stated that Pol1ce Officer Schoolcraft had informed her that
he had a big meeting that involved his delegate and about 8-9 other supe isors in
which they discussed his work performance. Police Officer Schoolcraft state to her
that he has not had any problems with work until this year. Dr. Lamstein state that he

CONFIDENTIAL

NYC00004556

reported to her that he didn't have any financial problems; however he hasn't filed his
taxes in several years. Police Officer Schoolcraft stated that his mother prepare his
taxes and made his doctors appointments before her death 5 years ago from cancer.

Regarding the IRS, Police Officer Schoolcraft stated that he wasn't worried about it
because the IRS owed him money.
Or. Lamstein further discussed her first meeting with Police Officer

Schoolcraft. She stated that Police Officer Schoolcraft disclosed to her that he likes the
JOb (referring to the NYPD) but hates where he is assigned. She stated that Police
Officer Schoolcraft described a situation when he was assigned to ROO overtime and

received the call that his mother had a stroke. He stated that he wasn't able to be
excused from his assignment and how he resented the job because of it. Dr. Lam stein
also infomned the undersigned that Police Officer Schoolcraft stated to her that he
doesn't hallucinate nor IS he paranoid, but wonders if he was asstgned to the 81 to get
jammed up. Dr. Lamstein stated that she recommended to Police Officer Schoolcraft
that he speaks to someone regarding the continuation of CBT (Cognitive Behavioral

Therapy) to help him and further recommended him to read a book called "Feeling
Good". She stated that she had given Police Officer Schoolcraft a list of specialist that
specializes in CST that accepted his insurance (Aetna). Dr. Lamstein disclosed that
she also informed Police Officer Schoolcraft that he was going to be on restricted duty
temporarily and that it wasn't for disciplinary reasons. She stated that Police Officer
Schoolcraft was cooperative in his demeanor; however he indicated that he didn't want

to be on restricted duty. Dr. Lamstein recommended that Police Officer Schoolcraft get
CST to improve his cooping skills and to reduce his physical symptoms of stress.
Dr. Lamstein disclosed that her next face to face with Police Officer
Schoolcraft was on July 27, 2009. She stated that the discussed how and what was
Police Officer Schoolcraft was doing to get himself better. Dr. Lamstein stated that
Police Officer Schoolcraft infomned her that "their leaving him alone and that they aren't
forcing him to do overtime and that there was no pressure on giving summons".
(Refernng to his work conditions at the 81 Precinct) Dr. Lamstein stated that it was way
too early to give clearance to anyone who has been experiencing stress and anxiety

symptoms as Police Officer Schoolcraft had exhibited to her.
Dr. Lam stein stated that her next face to face interview with Police Officer
Schoolcraft was on October 27, 2010 when she returned from vacation. She stated that
she wanted to meet with Police Officer Schoolcraft to make sure he understood why he
was on Restricted Duty. (She explained that she wanted to do this quickly because
Larry Schoolcraft had called City Hall and complained to the Deputy Mayor's Assistant
that she never told Police Officer Schoolcraft why he was on Restncted Duty) Dr.
Lamstein stated that the information that Larry Schoolcraft reported regarding her not
infomning Police Officer Schoolcraft why he was on Restricted Duty was not true. Dr.
Lamstein stated that she explained to Police Officer Schoolcraft during this visit in detail
why he was on Restricted Duty; because he has significant physical manifestations of
stress that were causing him much discomfort and encouraged him that he would

benefit from treatment. Dr. Lamstein disclosed that Police Officer Schoolcraft infomned
her that he no longer has physical symptoms of stress even though he is still facing the
same stresses as before. She stated that she recommended stress management and
relaxation training so that the next time he is faced with new increased stresses, he
won't have a re-continuance of the chest pains, and headaches upset stomach, etc as

he first had when he came to PES.
Dr. Lamstein identified that she had pager duty on October 31, 2009.
Reading from her notes, Dr. Lamstein explained that at approximately 17 40 hours she

received a call from Sgt. Kloos, Sick Desk Supervisor who explained to her what had
transpired with Police Officer Schoolcraft earlier in the day at the 81 Precinct. Dr.
Lamstein stated that she subsequently called Captain Lauterbom who reiterated the
infomnation that she had received previously. She stated that Captain Lauterborn
reported to her underlying issues with MOS at the command that might have
precipitated Police Officer Schoolcraft going AWOL, He infomned her that MOS had
made allegations against others and the Department's investigation of those allegations
had picked up that week. About 4 PO's and 2 Civilians were called down for questioning

that week. Notifications were in the telephone message log so MOS knew who was
gotng. He stated that her that Police Officer Schoolcraft went up to them upon their
retum, tying to get information from them about what they were asked.

CONFIDENTIAL

I

NYC00004557

Dr. Lamstein disclosed that Captain Lauterborn asked her if Police Officer

Schoolcraft was suicidal or depressed because he needed to know how concerned they
were about his (Police Officer Schoolcraft) safety. She stated that he had informed
Captatn Lauterborn that she had last seen Pollee Officer Schoolcraft on 10/27/10 and at
that time he looked okay. Dr. Lamstetn stated that she informed Captain Lauterborn that
at rw time did Police Officer Schoolcraft express thoughts of suicide to her, but he also
never went AWOL before or acted the way he has on this date. She stated' that she told
Capta1n Lauterborn that her assessment of Police Officer Schoolcraft was good based
on the iast time she seen him, but that she is unable to say for certainty that he was not
at risk of seriously injuring himself under the present circumstances. Dr. Lamstein stated
that she provided Captain Lauterborn with basic information about the reason why

Police Officer Schoolcraft was on Restncted Duty-that he had displayed symptoms of
stress: nausea, cardiac, etc.

Dr. Lamstein slated that after her telephone call with Captain Lauterbom,
she called Pol tee Officer Schoolcraft and informed him that the Captain Lauterborn was
looktng for htm and for him to return to the Command so that this situation can be
resolved without a need for a mobilization to search for him.
Dr. Lamstein stated that she did inform Captain
leave a message on Police Officer Schoolcraft's cell phone for
She stated that she suggested that Captain Lauterborn
Schoolcraft's father because he's close to him and most likely

Lauterborn that she did
him to contact someone.
contact Police Officer
knows his whereabouts.

Dr. Lamstetn stated that she had spokelto Captain Lauterborn a couple of more times
throughout the eventng and later learned that Police Offtcer Schoolcraft was at home
sleep. Dr Lamstein stated that she had no contact with anyone at the 81 Precinct until
Police Officer Schoolcraft went AWOL.
Before the conclusion of the interview, Dr. Lamstein dtsclosed that she had
documented several other Incidents relaltng to Police Officer Schoolcraft; speaking to
lAB :nvest.gators, 81 Precinct Supervisors, Larry Schoolcraft, Jamaica Hospital, the
Department Advocates Offtce and staff from Fulton-Montgomery VA Primary Care
Practice. (The above interactions are listed in Dr. Lamstein notes which are included as
an attachment) This case will remain open.

. Jo Cnsallt
Team Leader I Case Supervisor

~i~ssi
Commanding officer

W/S# 03j

ATT A

NYC00004558