Bracci v. Becker, 1:11-cv-1473

Decision Date09 January 2013
Docket Number1:11-cv-1473
PartiesALECIA BRACCI, FREDERICK J. NERONI, and TATIANA NERONI, Plaintiffs, v. CARL F. BECKER, in his official and individual capacity Justice of New York State, Delaware County Family Court, Surrogate's Court, County Court, Acting Justice of Supreme Court; ROBERT MULVEY, in his official and individual capacity Chief Administrative Judge of New York State Court Administration, 6th Judicial District; STATE OF NEW YORK; and JONATHAN LIPPMAN, Chief Judge of the State of New York, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

ALECIA BRACCI, FREDERICK J. NERONI, and TATIANA NERONI, Plaintiffs,
v.
CARL F. BECKER, in his official and individual capacity Justice of New York State,
Delaware County Family Court, Surrogate's Court, County Court, Acting Justice of Supreme Court;
ROBERT MULVEY, in his official and individual capacity Chief Administrative Judge of New York State Court Administration,
6th Judicial District; STATE OF NEW YORK; and JONATHAN LIPPMAN, Chief Judge of the State of New York, Defendants.

1:11-cv-1473

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: January 9, 2013


(MAD/RFT)

APPEARANCES:

NERONI LAW OFFICE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorneys for Defendants

OF COUNSEL:

TATIANA NERONI, ESQ.

CHRISTOPHER W. HALL, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

Page 2

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs commenced this action on December 17, 2011, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. See Dkt. No. 1. On January 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 5.

Currently before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs' motion to supplement their amended complaint.

II. BACKGROUND

In this civil rights action, Plaintiffs have brought suit against three New York State judges and the State of New York. See Dkt. No. 5 at ¶¶ 7-10. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Becker, an Acting Delaware County Supreme Court Justice, is the catalyst for this lawsuit. See id. at ¶ 11. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that "[t]he essence of the case is a continuous and vicious pattern of retaliation by an obviously disqualified judge against an attorney and her clients and family members based on Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni's complaint against him to [the] Judicial Conduct Commission in December of 2010 asking to take Defendant Becker off the bench, and on arguments of bias and misconduct raised against [him] by Tatiana Neroni and Frederick J. Neroni in court pleadings, as well as based on the lawsuit filed against Defendant Becker on June 27, 2011 for discrimination and other misconduct." See id.1

In the December 2010 complaint filed against Defendant Becker with the Judicial Conduct Commission (the "Commission"), Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni alleged misconduct in nine

Page 3

different cases presided over by Defendant Becker. See id. at ¶ 105. She requested that he be taken off the bench and that he no longer be appointed to serve as an Acting Supreme Court Justice. See id. Moreover, Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni asked the Commission to appoint a special investigator because the vice-chair of the commission was involved in one of the episodes of alleged misconduct. See id. According to Plaintiffs, their request for the "[a]ppointment of [a] special prosecutor was denied and the Commission refused to review well documented misconduct of Defendant Becker on the basis of alleged facial insufficiency." See id. Plaintiffs claim that there is no right to appeal a denial of a citizen complaint or "for the refusal of the Attorney General to file a writ of quo warranto." See id. at ¶¶ 106-07.

On June 27, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Defendant Becker in Delaware County Supreme Court. See id. at ¶¶ 14, 109; Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 52. In this state-court lawsuit, Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief "in cases where he was disqualified, where he acted in clear absence of all jurisdiction, where he acted outside of any court-related activity and where he acted in his administrative capacity." See id. at ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 52. Plaintiffs claim that the state-court lawsuit was brought in response to Defendant Becker's "misconduct and discriminatory actions toward Plaintiffs[.]" See id. at ¶ 53. Further, Plaintiffs assert that "[o]ne of the reasons for the lawsuit was that Defendant Becker usurped authority of the court clerk and got himself assigned to 100% of cases involving Plaintiffs Tatiana and Frederick Neroni as parties in an attempt to retaliate against them for their complaints against him and for raising issues of his misconduct, conflict of interest and disqualification and legitimacy as a judge." See Dkt. No. 5 at ¶ 15.

Plaintiffs claim that they have been unfairly sanctioned by Defendant Becker both before and after they commenced their state-court action. After the lawsuit was filed, Plaintiffs claim

Page 4

that Defendant Becker sanctioned Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni in nearly every motion she filed in Supreme Court and in one case in Family Court. See id. at ¶ 110. Plaintiffs claim that, since the state-court action was filed, Defendant Becker sanctioned Plaintiff Bracci $250.00 "for legitimate actions . . . and based on legitimate actions of . . . Tatiana Neroni in unrelated criminal actions, in unrelated and still pending Supreme Court actions, and for out-of-court Freedom of Information investigations pertaining personally to Defendant Becker which Defendant Becker admittedly tracked." See id. at ¶ 18. Since the state-court action was filed, Defendant Becker has sanctioned Plaintiff Frederick Neroni over $30,700 in civil penalties, $8,000 in sanctions, and reduced the amount of attorney's fees he was due in several actions. See id. at ¶ 20. Further, Defendant Becker began disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiffs Frederick and Tatiana Neroni for their actions in Mokay v. Neroni, Index No. 2007-695. See id. at ¶¶ 77-78. Also, since the state-court action was filed, Defendant Becker has sanctioned Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni $13,000 in five different civil cases. See id. at ¶¶ 22, 110.

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant Becker made several improper rulings in Plaintiff Bracci's family court case both before and after they filed the state-court action. See id. at ¶¶ 25-27. Plaintiffs claim that, after Defendant Becker was assigned to Plaintiff Bracci's family court case in the summer of 2008, he improperly took away her custodial rights over her only child. See id. at ¶ 28. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Becker's custody determination and other actions in that case were the product of bias, a retaliatory motive, and because of a confrontation between Defendant Becker and Plaintiff Bracci's mother. See id. at ¶¶ 25-30, 41-42. Some of Defendant Becker's allegedly improper conduct in Plaintiff Bracci's family court case includes the following: (1) Defendant Becker's failure to disclose a confrontation he had with Plaintiff Bracci's mother; (2) the removal of Plaintiff Bracci's "medical decision-making rights;" (3) the

Page 5

refusal to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff Bracci's mother's petition; (4) the refusal to hear evidence of a death threat; and (5) the sanctioning of Plaintiff Bracci "for actions of third parties in unrelated court proceedings[.]" See id. at ¶¶ 35-40, 45-46, 52-55.

In September of 2009, Defendant Becker recused himself from a child neglect case brought against Plaintiffs Tatiana and Frederick Neroni. See id. at ¶¶ 69-70. According to Plaintiffs, "[b]y doing so, Defendant Becker declared that he did not believe that he could be impartial towards Frederick J. Neroni or his family members." See id. at ¶ 71. Plaintiffs claim that "Defendant Becker was estopped from presiding in any cases where Frederick J. Neroni or his family members were parties or counsel because he was disqualified on the basis of a presumption of partiality that arose from his recusal in similar proceedings." See id. at ¶ 72. Further, Plaintiffs assert that "all of the above indicates that Defendant Becker was in bitter and running controversy with Frederick J. Neroni and his spouse Tatiana Neroni and could not possibly, as a matter of due process of law, be the judge of his own impartiality and continue to preside over cases where Frederick J. Neroni and Tatiana Neroni were attorneys or parties, but continued to do so." See id. at ¶ 74 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant Becker showed his bias towards them in 2010 during Plaintiff Bracci's family court proceeding by instructing opposing counsel, in open court and on the record, that he "'expects'" him to file a complaint against Plaintiff Tatiana Neroni with the Attorney Grievance Committee for alleged unprofessional behavior. See id. at ¶ 98. Opposing counsel complied, but the Grievance Committee eventually found the claim "unsubstantiated." See id. at ¶ 99. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Becker failed to disclose a conflict of interest when he presided over cases brought by Plaintiffs Tatiana and Frederick Neroni against Delaware County. See id. at ¶¶ 100-01. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant Becker's conflict arises

Page 6

from the fact that he represented Delaware County for twenty-seven (27) years prior to taking the bench. See id. at ¶ 101.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains eight causes of action against the individual Defendants in their official and individual capacities, as well as claims against the State of New York and the New York State Office of Court Administration ("OCA"). See id. at ¶¶ 137-322. Plaintiffs' claims include (1)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT