Graham v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 14 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CV–5747.,11–CV–5747. |
| Parties | Claude GRAHAM, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, The New York City Administration for Children's Services, Janet Caesar a/k/a Janet Caesar–Balfour, and Eileen Treacy, PH.D, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Steve Marchelos, Mineola, NY, for the plaintiff.
Eric Brent Porter, New York City Department of Law, New York, NY, for defendants the City of New York, the New York City Administration of Children's Services, and Janet Caesar a/k/a Janet Caesar–Balfour.
Martha Anne Calhoun, New York City Department of Law, Joseph David La Cava, Garson DeCorato & Cohen, LLP, New York, NY, for defendant Dr. Eileen Treacy.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDER, & JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
This case illustrates the adage “justice delayed is justice denied.” While the Family Court and the City, through its employees and consultant, took years to investigate charges of neglect against a child's father, completely separating the son and parent during the process, the youngster grew estranged from his absent dad. Although the charges against him were dismissed, the sire had effectively lost the son. The law regrets the harm caused by its sloth. But no violation of the constitutional or statutory rights of the plaintiff was committed, so the complaint must be dismissed.
In March 2006, the New York City Administration for Children's Services (“ACS”), an agency of the City of New York, began investigating plaintiff's wife after it received allegations from a person other than the plaintiff that she physically and sexually abused her children. In the course of its investigation, an ACS caseworker, Janet Caesar (“Caesar”), conducted four interviews with plaintiff's son, JGR, then seven years old. In the first two interviews, JGR denied all allegations of abuse; in the third interview, he stated that his mother was abusing him; in the fourth, he recanted his accusation and claimed that his father, plaintiff Claude Graham, had coached him to say that he was being abused. At the request of ACS, a Family Court judge issued an order of protection forbidding Graham from seeing JGR and instructed the agency to investigate the father and consider filing a petition against him. That JGR was coached by his father to falsely report the abuse was the opinion later reached by a forensic psychologist, Dr. Eileen Treacy.
For almost a year, the initial temporary order of protection forbade Graham from seeing his son, and the case against JGR's mother remained open, yet allegedly little was done to investigate the claims against them. Plaintiff repeatedly complained to officials that ACS was not taking swift and adequate steps to look into the alleged abuse. He claims that, in retaliation for these complaints, a Family Court petition was filed against him, alleging that he emotionally neglected JGR by coaching him to fabricate the abuse allegations. He claims that the defendants lacked sufficient evidence to initiate the proceedings against him and sought to cover up their prior inactivity by manufacturing the charges.
The Family Court case against the plaintiff lasted for almost three years. At the request of ACS, during the pendency of the case, Graham was subject to temporary orders of protection that severely limited or completely barred him from having contact with his son. Although the cases were ultimately dismissed with prejudice against both parents, the damage to the father's relationship with his son was devastating.
Plaintiff now sues the City of New York, ACS, and Caesar (collectively “the City Defendants”), as well as Dr. Treacy, alleging:
• Violations of his rights:
• To be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;
• To procedural and substantive due process; and
• To equal protection under the New York state and federal constitutions and 18 U.S.C. § 1983;
• Malicious prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law;
• Abuse of process;
• Negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
• Negligent hiring and supervision.See Compl. ¶¶ 83–180, Doc. Entry 1, Nov. 23, 2011 (“Compl.”). He seeks declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surlock v. Delaney
...the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.'" Graham v. City of New York, 869 F. Supp. 2d 337, 350 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893 (1976)). "'As a general rule . . . before parent......
-
K.D. v. White Plains Sch. Dist.
...actions other than physical removal might also implicate the liberty interests of parents, see, e.g., Graham v. City of New York, 869 F.Supp.2d 337, 349 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (noting that “[g]overnment actions other than removal may also implicate important rights,” and concluding that temporary o......
-
Michael N. v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...independent judicial decisions" shows plaintiff was afforded all of her procedural due process]; see also Graham v. City of New York , 869 F. Supp. 2d 337, 349-351 [E.D.N.Y. 2012] ["Procedural due process is designed to reduce the possibility that the government will infringe on protected i......
-
Estate of Keenan v. Hoffman-Rosenfeld
...claim under state law." Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2002)(citations omitted); see also Graham v. City of N.Y., 869 F. Supp.2d 337, 355 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)("Generally, the elements of a federal claim for malicious prosecution under § 1983 are borrowed from the underlying analo......