Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 86

Letter addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from William S. J. Fraenkel dated 5/8/12 re: Counsel for the City defendants requests that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint be denied. ***Accepted as a docket and file by Chambers. (mro) (mro).

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;22am P002/010

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

WILLl"oM SJ. FRAENKEL

Phone: [phone]

F~; 212-788-0940'
B.-mail: 1>.naenke@law,nyc.gov

100 CHL"RCH S'TR!1ET

Corporation Counsel

NEW YORK, N"{ 10007

,

May
Via Facsimile Transmission [phone]
Honorable Robert W. SWeet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

;-r

'-'- °0"
'1J:~~'9'='/ J"5)
'\

O2

'

0

.'';:::11,
,' .J ;,.,0,. :;::::.~"'-

??OI2 '-'

66

a~
,

~

Re: Schoolcraft Yo The City ofNew York, et aL
Civil Action No. IO-Civ.-6005 (RWS) .
Law Dept. No. 2010-033074
Dear Judge Sweet:

I am an Assistant Corporation Coun,sel in the office of Michael A. Cardozo,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, assigned to represent the City of New York~ the
New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), and individual defendants Deputy Chief Michael
Marino, Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North Gerald Nelson, Captain Theordore
Lauterbow, Lieutenant Joseph Goff, s.ergeant Frederick Sa-wyer, Sergeant Kurt Duncan,
Lieutenant Christopher Broschart, and Sergeant Shantel James (collectively the "City
Defendants))) in the above-referenced matter.
In advance of tomorrow's argument the City defendants respectfully submit this
letter in opposition to Plaintiff's letter motion, dated April 25, 2012, seeking leave to amend the
Complaint. Plaintiff wishes to add claims alleging that the City defendants violated his rights·
under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitutio.n, For
the reasons set forth below the motion should be denied.
Despite the liberality of th,e. Federal Rules of Civil Procedille leave to ameild a
complaint may be denied if the amendment would be futile. See Oguejiofo v. Open Text Corn.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45418, 5-6 (S.D,NY. May 7, 201O)(Sweet, 1), reconsideration denied
2010 U.S. Dist LEXIS 94794 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2010)(citing Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182-83 (1962). See also Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). Here
amending the Complaint to add a First Ainendment claim would be futile. Under the Supreme
Court's holding in Garcetti Vo Ceballos. 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and that holding's Second Circuit
progeny, the facts alleged in the proposed Amended Complaint fail to state a First Amendment

,

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;22am P003/010

claim. Under G¥cetti. '(when public employees make statements pursuant to their official
duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the
Constitution does not insulate their conununications from employer discipline." In the instant
matter the Plaintiff spoke not as a citizen butas an employee and thus his alleged speech was not
protected. 547 U.S. at 421.
Plaintiff's April 2Sth letter to the Court plaintiff alleges that he «was speaking out
regarding the widespread manipulation, tampering and falsification of civilian complaints being
made by the public at large." Reporting on such matters falls squarely within a police officer's
duties. Thus Plaintiff made the pU1ported speech as an employee and not as a citizen and
therefore is that speech is not protected.
The Second Circuit, in Weintraub v, Bd. of Educ., 593 F.3d 196, 202 (2d Cif.)
celt denied, _ U.S, ~, 131 S. Ct. 444, 178 L. Ed. 2d 344 (2010), explained that the inquiry
into whether a public employee spoke pursuant to his official duties is both objective and "a
practical one," (Citing Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 424.). The Circuit held that ''tmder the First
. Amendment~ speech can be 'pursuant to' a public employee's official job duties even though it is
not required by, or included in, the employee's job description, or in response to a request by the
employer." Id. at 203. Although recognizing that no single factor is dispositive, C{)urts have
considered several factors when attempting to detennine if a public employee spoke pursuant to
his official duties. These factors include the plaintiffs job description; the persons to whom the
speech was directed; and whether the speech resulted from special knowledge gained through the
plaintiffs employment, Courts have also considered whether the speech occurs in the workplace
and whether the speech concerns the subject matter of the employee's job. Frisenda v. Inc. VilL
of Malverne, 775 F. Supp. 2d 486,506 (B.D.N.Y. 2011).
The plaintiff in Weintraub was a teacher who complained about the school
administration's failure to discipline students. The Second Circuit found the plaintiffs
complaints were not protected speech. The Court said that the plaintiff was speaking as an
employee and not a citizen as the complaints were "part-and-parcel of his concerns" about his
ability to "properly execute his duties," as a public school teacher. Weintraub, at 203.
The plaintiff in Frisenda was a police lieutenant claiming to have been retaliated
against for engaging in protected speech. One of the alleged speech acts in Frisenda was
plaintiff's authorship of a memorandum submitted to the police chief pointing out certain
procedures which pJaintiff considered dangerous. Frisenda, 775 F. Supp. 2d at 504. In ruling that
particular speech act was not protected the court noted that the speech's subject matter related to
plaintiff's employment as a police officer; that the speech was only made internally within the
police department; and, the matters the speech concerned "were things that [plaintiff] came to
learn as part of his duties and responsibilities in the [police department)." Id. at 506.
Similarly> in Brady v. Comrty of Suffolk, 657 F. Supp. 2d 331 (E.D.N.Y. 2009),
plaintiff was a Suffolk County police officer who 'Wrote a memorandum allegedly expressing
concern for the public's safety as a result of the county's enforcement policies. Id. at 337, The
court found the memorandum not to be protected speech. Indeed, the court noted that more than
simply being "related" to plaintiffs employment, the memorandum touched on "one of plaintiffs
core job functions [which] was to enforce the [Vehicle Traffic Law] VTL by issuing traffic

-2­

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11:22am POOd/010

summonses, and his statements solely concerned the enforcement of the VTL through issuances
of traffic summonses to off-duty law enforcement personnel and PBA cardholders," Id. at 344.
Recently, in Matthews v. City ofNew Yori<;;, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53213 at *7­
8 (S.D.N.Y. Apt. 12, 2012), a police officer Claimed to have suffered retaliation for voicing
concerns about the alleged use of illegal quotas for arrests cmdsummonses. Judge Jones fmUld
that such speech, voicing "concerns about illegal policing practices are 'part·and-parcel' of [the
officer'S) ability to "properly execute his duties." Consequently, the purported speech was
unprotected under Garcetti. The Court explained that the officer's "complaints to his supervisors
are consistent with his core duties as a police officer, to legally and ethlcally search, arrest, issue
summonses, and--in general--police." The Court rejected the claim that the officer was not
technically "required" to expose the problem as part of his employment duties, Judge Jones
characterized such an argument as one which elevated foml over substance.
Just as in Garcetti, Weintraub, Frisenda, Brady and Matthews, the Plaintiff's
speech in the present action is not protected. Employing the factors identified in the foregoing
cases compels the conclusion that Plaintiff was engaging in speech as an employee and not a
citizen. First, the subject matter of the complaints fell within Plaintiffs job description. A
police officer's job is to lawfully enforce the law. If a police officer for any reason believes that
Hwidespread manipulation, tampering and falsification of civilian complaints being made by the
public at large ..." exists, the officer has a duty to report such misconduct. Reporting such
misconduct is squarely within an police officer's job duties. Although many would consider the
duty of a police officer to report misconduct, including records falsification, to be self evident, it
is in fact an explicit obligation forunifbnn members of the NYPD.
All uniform NYPD members have an obligation to report misconduct. This
obligation is reflected in NYPD Patrol Guide section 207-21 which states that "[a]l1 members of
the service have an absolute duty to report any corruption or other misconduct, or allegation of
corruption Of other misconduct. of which they become aware." I Even in the absence of the
Patrol Guide section it cannot reasonably be asserted that reporting misconduct or illegality is not
part of police officer's job. To the contrary, as in Matthews, speech concerning illegal policing
practices are part-and-parcel of an officer's ability to properly execute his duties.

For the convenience of the Court a copy of NY'PD Patrol Guide section 207-21 is attached
hereto as Appendix 1. The Patrol Guide is a public document of which the Court may take
judicial notice. Pani v. Em]2ire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F ,3d 67, 75 (2d eiL 1998) cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1103 (1999)("It is well established that a district court may rely on matters of
public record in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), including case law and
statutes."). Of course, reporting misconduct need not be explicitly stated in a job description or
departmental rule to be deemed part of an officer's duties. As the Second Circuit noted: "speech
can be ~pursuant to' a public employee's official job duties even though it is not required by, or
included in, the employee's job description, or in response to a request by the employer."
U.s. ---' 131 S. Ct. 444
Weintraub v. Bd. ofEduc., 593 F.3d 196,203 (2d Cif.) cert. denied,
(2010).

-3­

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11:22am P005/010

Second, the persons to whom the speech was directed were all 'Within the NYPD

2

.

Plaintiff s speech was not made to the public at large, to the media, or to elected officials outside

of law enforcement. This limited audience to whom the speech was directed is a factor to be

considered under Weintraub, 593 F.3d at 203-4. See also Frisenda v, Inc. Vili. of Malverne, 775

F. Supp. 2d 486,506 (E.D.N.Y. 2011). £lpd see Caraccilo vo Vili. of Seneca Falls, 582 F. Supp.

2d 390, 411 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)("the reported cases 'are consistent in holding that when a public

employee raises complaints or concenis up the chain of command at his workplace about his job

duties, that speech is undertaken in the course of perfonning his job."')(quoting Davis v.

Mc~innev, 518 F.3d 304,313 (5th Cir.2008).

Although plaintiff protests that he was going to go to the media and that the

alleged retaliation was an effort at prior restraint, the proposed Amended Complaint lacks any

facts supporting such a claim. Instead the proposed amended complaint contains only mere

conclusory statements concerning to whom Plaintiff wanted to speak and supposition without

supporting evidence baldly alleging an effort at prior :restraint. As more fully discussed below,

such allegations cannot withstand a motion to dismiss under Ashcroft v, Iqbal: 556 U.S. 662,

_ _, 129 S. Ct. 1937. 1950 (2009). The alleged facts in the proposed Amended Complaint

indicate that Plaintiff spoke to no one about the purported improprieties oth.er than his employer.

Finally, Plaintiff's complaints resulted from special knowledge gained through the

his employment NYPD police officer. See also Healv v. City of New Yo:rk Dep't of Sanitation,

286 Fed. Appx. 744, 746 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13734 at *3-5 (2d Cit. 2008)(Sanitation

worker's report to his superior, based on knowledge learned only by dint of his employment} of

what the employee believed to be evidence of corruption was within the scope of his duties and

not protected speech). When we consider a police officer's job duties; the persons to whom he

spoke; that the speech resulted from special knowledge gained through the his employment; and,

that the speech occurred in the workplace and concerns the subject matter of Plaintiff's job, it is

evident that Plaintiff spoke as an employee and not a citizen.

Plaintiffs letter attempts take this case out from the Garcetti rubric. However,

Plaintiff either fails. to comprehend or refuses to acknowledge the dictates of the Supreme

. Court~s holding. Indeed, Plaintiffs interpretation of Qarcetti is at odds with the decision itself.
Plaintiff maintains that "First Amendment protection is only lost when the speech is required as
a function of the employee's job."(emphasis in the original). But the very quotation Plaintiff .
brings from Garcetti refers to speech made "pursuant to their official duties" and not 'required~
by the job. Moreover, Garcetticautioned courts against lUldue formalism. Garcetti, 547lJ.S. at
424-25. See also Weintraub, 593 F.3d at 202. ("The Garcetti Court cautioned courts against
construing a government employee's official duties too narrowly."). A plaintiff may be acting
pursuant to his job duties even absent a specific command to report falsified records. Of course,
as noted above, there is a specific command, NYPD Patrol Guide section 207-21, to report

It is of no moment that plaintiff did not limit his alleged speech to his chain of command.

The Second Circuit, in Anemone v .. Metro. Tr~sp. Auth;, 629 F.3d 97, 115-17 (2d Crr. 2011),

noted that a public employee does not immunize his speech by making a report outside his chain

of command. The inquiry is whether the subject matter of the report was part of his official

duties.

2

4­

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;23am POOS/Di0

misconduct Thus, when plaintiff purportedly spoke about "comlption within the New York
City Police"
and "repeated instances of "videspread fraud regarding civilian
complaints"(Plaintiff's letter at 3), plaintiff was acting pursuant to his job duties.
Plaintiff seems to willfully ignore that reporting on improprieties of the types
which were purportedly the subject of his speech are at the heart of a police officer's duties. See
e.g., Matthews, 2012 U.S. Dis!' LEXIS 53213 at *7-8. Most of the cases to which Plaintiff cites
do nothing to establish that reporting on the misconduct of falsifying reports would be anything
but a police officer's duty. The matter of Sassi v. Lou-Gould, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13643,
2007 WL 635579 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2"7, 2007), cited by plaintiff was unambiguous in finding that
Chief Sassi had no duty to WTite the letters at issue in that case concerning department funding.
The Court found Chief Sassi was explicitly ~TIting as a '''resident taxpayer' of the City of
Beacon, ... Sassi, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13643 at *12. This view of the Sassi case was echoed
by the lower Weintraub court. Weintraub v. Bd. of Educ., 489 F. Supp. 2d 209, 220 (E.D.N.Y.
2006), a.ft:d. 593 F.3d 196,202 (2d Cir.) cert denied, _ U;S. _ _, 131 S. Ct. 444, 178 L. Ed.
2d 344 ( 2 0 1 0 ) . "
" "
.
1t

Plaintiffs reference to Your Honor's holding in McAvey v. Orange-Ulster
BOCES? 2009 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 77152 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) is similarly of no advantage. Your
Honor in a subsequent ruling on that case, 805 F. Supp. 2d 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), held that
although McAvey's Freedom Of Infonnation Law request constituted protected speech, her
"internal complaints to her supervisors and the BOCES Board are more akin to the speech in
Weintraub and Garcetti and are not afforded First Amendment protection." Id. at 39, n.1.
Further> even if McAvey's duties did not involve "scrutinizing her supervisors for fraud", police
officers by contrast have an affirmative duty to report misconduct such as a falsified report. See
NYPD Patrol Guide section 207-21.
The nature of the speech Plaintiff recounts in his proposed Amended Complaint is
of such character as to be unprotected under the Supreme Court's Garcetti holding. The facts
alleged in the proposed AIIlended Complaint fail to state a First Amendment claim. Therefore
amending the Complaint to add a First Amendment claim would be futile. Consequently, the
request should be denied.
Plaintiff's allegation in the Second Claim for Relief that defendants were
attempting to exercise prior restraint also is futile. It is futile not only because the subject matter
of the speech falls within an officer's job duties, but because insufficient facts exist to survive a
motion to dismiss. Mere conclusory statements are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for
failing to state a claim made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. l2(b)(6). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, - ' 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). Although when considering a motion to dismiss a
Court must assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and draw all reasonable
inferences in plaintiffs favor, the complaint must cOl:ltain enough facts to allow the Court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defe1;l.dant is liable for the misconduct a11eged.
Interpharm. Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 655 F.3d 136, 141-142 (2d Cir. 2011). If a
complaint contains I!well~pleaded factual allegations, a court should aSsume their veracity and
then deteunine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.1I Iqbal, supra., 556
u.s. at _ _, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. However, this plausibility standard, although not requiring
probability, nonetheless requires more than a sheer possibility that" a defendant has acted

-5­

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;23am P007/010

unlawfully. Iqbal, supra., 556 U.S, at~_, 129' S, Ct. at 1949. (quoting Bell,Atlantic COlJ'.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556-557, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1966 (2007).

V.

In paragraphs 255 and 256 of the Proposed Amended Complaint plaintiff asserts
that his confmement occurred "as he was specifically preparing to disclose infonnation to the
public at large" and was intended as a "prior restraint on plainti:f:rs speech,,,." The content of
these paragraphs are not facts but conclusory statements insufficient under Iqbal to survive a
motion to dismiss. Consequently, such an amendment would be futile and should not be granted.
Wherefore, the City Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs motion to
amend the complaint be denied.
We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

tvA¢

;i~

William S.J. Fraenkel
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Cc:
Via Facsimile Transmission
L. Norinsberg (Fax [phone])
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, New York 10007

JOIl

Cohen & Fitch, LLP (Fax [phone])
Gerald Cohen
'

Joshua Fitch

233 Broadway, Suite 1800

New York, New York 10279

Gregory JohnRadomisli (Fax [phone])

Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP

th
220 East 42nd Street, 13 Floor

New York, NY 10017

Brian Lee (Fax [phone])

Ivone, Deyine & Jensen LLP

2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite NIOO

Lake Success, NY 11042

Bruce).1. Brady (Fax [phone])

Callan, Koster, Brady & Bremlen LLP

1 "Whitehall Street

New York, NY 10004

-6­

Fax [phone]

APPENDIXl

May 8 2012 11;23am P008/010

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;23am P009/010

PATROL GUIDE
Procedure No:

.Sec:tkm.: Co1l1plaints

207-21

ALLEGAnONS OF CORRUPTION AND OTHER MISCONDUCT

..,
, DAIe ISSUED:
10/16/09

AGAINST MEMBERS OF TIlE SERVICE

I

DATE EFFI!CTlVJ;;:
..
lO123/09

I

REVISION NUMGER:

t PA,CE:

09-05

10f2

PURPOSE

To process allegations of corruption and other misconduct against members of
the service,

SCOPE

AH members of the service must be incorruptible, An honest member of the
service will not tol~rate memben of the service who engage in corruption or
other mi~onduct. All members of the service have !Ul absolute duty to report
any corruption or other misconduct, or allegation of corruption or other
misconduct, ofwhich they become aware.

DEFINITION

CORRUPTlON/OTJ:lER 1Y1lSCQ.tlQUct: Crimina! activity or other misconduct
. of any kind including the use of excessive force or perjury that is committed by a
member of the service whether on or off duty.

PROCEDURE·

Upon observing. or becoming aware of cOITuption, or other misconduct or upon
receivins an allegation of conuption Of other misconduot involving a. member of
the service:

NOTE

To prev,nt interruption or delay in vital services, a lelephone switchboard operator will
refer any alfegation of corruption or other misconduct 10 the desk officer, who will
record the details ofthe aUegari,m(s).

MEMBER OF
TRESERVICE

1.

CONCERNED

NOTE

Telephone Internal Affairs Bureau; Command Center (212) 741 -8401 (24
hours) or I-gOO-PRIDE PD (24 hours) or (212) CORRUPT (24 hours).
fl..
Give prelhriinary facts.
b.
IdentifY self or, if opting to remain anonymous, obtain Confidential
Identification Number:' from the Command Center investigator.
c.
Furnish details ofcorruption or other misconduct.

J(1 certain cases, supervisory personnel assigned to the Command CenteJ' ofthe Imernal
AjJai1'3 8ureau may dt.,-ect on duty members nGf reporting anonymously 10 prepare a
detailed written report in addi([on to a telephone notification or request the member(s)
concerned to await the aYrj)/(11 ofan fnvestiliator.

2,

Prepare Ii detailed written report addressed to ~e Chief ofIntema1 Aff.urS.
a.
F()IWatd DIRECT, Of via FAX [phone], to the Command
Center, 315 Hudson Street, Wiiliin twenty-four (24) hours,

NE\V • YORK .. CITY • POLICE • ·DEPARTMENT

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11;23am P010/010

PATROL GUIDE
PROCEDUR8 NUMBER;

J R.£V1Sl0N NUMBER:

DATp efPECTIVc:

207-2 i

lO123f09

!

.. , PACE:

09·05

20f2

.

MEMB&~.s

.

M;AY .QPT, TO REPQRT ALbEGaTIONS OF CORRUPTIPNl

OTHERM!~CQN}iQCT AN WRIUNG Atl0NYMOUSLY
.
,.
,
"

MEMBER OF
THE SERVICE

CONCERNED
(continued)

3..

"

"',

"

'

.

"

.

Prepare a detailed written report, upon becoming aware of misconduct,
and forward tQ:
.
a.
Chi.efofIntemal Affairs. or

b,
Box 1001, New'York, N.Y. 10014.

NOTE

Obtain!rw a ConjJdentialldentifJCalio/1 Numbe.~ from the Command Center investigator wilt
satisfy the member's reporting responslbility, if the in.formation reported is accurate and
complete. SubseqU<!nt or ongoing reporting is enoowaged to insure the. J~YJformation is timely
and complere and may be made by refe~rlcing the Confidential Idenlijicatfon Number.

ADDITIONAL
DATA

A member ofthe servIce haliing 01' receiving lriformatio71 relatl'l.'e 10 corrupllol1 or other
misconduct, or an alle~NQn ofcorrup(ion Or other mlscondw:r. has the re.sponsi bility to
report such information directly 10 the Internal Affairs Bureau, Command Center.
FailJ,lrelo report corl"uption, other misconduct, or aliegaUoi'r$ a/such acJ is, in itself, an
offense of s.erious mi.soonducl and will be' charged as such when uncovered during an
. irrvesttgation.. COl1.dUCl designed to cover up acts ofc(JYruption, pre:velll or discourQg¢
lIS report, or intimidate those who would report it, will be charged as an obstruction of
jusJice Or other c.,.fmi/1.a( act with the consent of the prosecutor who ha~ criminal
Jurisdiction,

A member of rhs service receiving an ailegatfon of corruption against oneself will
request. a supervisIng oDker to respond to the scene. 111ft supervilling o/ficl!.l' will
intervit.w. the complainant and c.otjfer wUh the Internal AjJ6.irs Eureau, Comm<ltld
Center, BEFORE interviewing the ,Tu!mbe.1' concernlng tM allegation.

RELATED
PROCEDURES

Allegations a/Corruption Against City Employee! (Othe.r than Membgf's of the New

York City Polir;e Department) (P.G. 207-22)

Processing Civilian Complafnts (1',0. 207-31)

Civilian Complaints - Witness Statement (P.G. 207-30)

NEW • YORK • CITY • POLICE • DEPARTMENT

Fax [phone]

May 8 2012 11 ;22am PQ01/010

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

i 00 CHURCH STREET

NEW YORK, NY 10007
FACSIMILE TRA.."iSMISSION

TO:

Honorable Robert W. Sweet

FROM:

William S.J. Fraenkel
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

DATE:

MAY 8, 2012

United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl street
New York, New York 10007
FAX #:

[phone]

You should receive TEN (10) page(s), including this one.

Please contact we if you do not receive all pages.

This facsimile contains CONFIDENTLAL lNFORMAnON which may also be LEGALLY PRNILEGED. It is
intended only for use ofllie addressee(s) named above. If you are neitberthe intended n::cipient of this facsimile nor
the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
disseminating or copying this facsimile is prohibited. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify this
office by telephone and return the original to the address set forth by the United States Postal Service. Thank you,

Re: Schoolcraft v. The City ofNew York, et at
Civil Action No. 10-Civ.-6005 (RWS)

Law Dept. No. 201O~033074

In advance of tomorrow's argument the City defenda,nts respectfully submit the following letter
in opposition to Plaintiffs letter motion, dated April 25, 2012

Copies Via Facsimile Transmission To:

Jon 1. Norinsberg(Fax [phone]), 225 Broadway, Suite 2700, New York, NY 10007

Cohen & Fitch, LLP (Fax 212~406-6890), Gerald Cohen, Joshua Fitch, 233 Broadway, Suite
1800, New York. NY 10279
Gregory John Radomisli (Fax [phone]), Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, 220 East 42nd
th
Street,13 Floor, New York, NY 10017
Brian Lee (Fax [phone]), Ivane, Devine & Jensen LLP, 2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite NIOO,
Lake Success, NY 11042
Bruce M. Brady (Fax [phone]), Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennen LLP, 1 \Vllltehall Street,
New York, NY 10004