Phillips ex rel. Green v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 25 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 03 Civ. 4887(VM).,03 Civ. 4887(VM).
• Citation: 453 F.Supp.2d 690
• Parties: Antonia PHILLIPS by her parents and natural guardians Gertral GREEN and Antonio Phillips, and Gertral Green and Antonio Phillips, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Kakilia Kinsey, Jesus Rivera, "John" Newmark, first name being fictitious and unknown, Shemain Webb, "John Does" and "Jane Does," said names being fictitious arid unknown, Catholic Home Bureau, Marina Seda, "John Roes" and "Jane Roes," said names being, fictitious and unknown, Cielo Cartagena, Jesus Gonzalez and Kim Vorhees, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Page 690

453 F.Supp.2d 690

Antonia PHILLIPS by her parents and natural guardians Gertral GREEN and Antonio Phillips, and Gertral Green and Antonio Phillips, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Kakilia Kinsey, Jesus Rivera, "John" Newmark, first name being fictitious and unknown, Shemain Webb, "John Does" and "Jane Does," said names being fictitious arid unknown, Catholic Home Bureau, Marina Seda, "John Roes" and "Jane Roes," said names being, fictitious and unknown, Cielo Cartagena, Jesus Gonzalez and Kim Vorhees, Defendants.

No. 03 Civ. 4887(VM).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

September 25, 2006.

Order Denying Reargument October 16, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

S. Sells, The Cochran Firm, Schneider, Kleinick, Weitz, Damashek, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Suzanne M. Halbardier, Barry, McTiernan & Moore, Glen Feinberg, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, Joseph R. Cammarosano, Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf L.L.P., New York, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                                 Page
                 I.  INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 697
                II.  FACTS ..................................................................... 697
                     A. REMOVAL OF ANTONIA AND HER SIBLINGS .................................... 697
                     B. FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE REMOVAL ............................. 699
                     C. ANTONIA'S STAY AT THE CHILDREN'S CENTER ................................ 700
                        1. Conditions of the Children's Center ................................. 700
                        2. Antonia's Stay at the Children's Center from January 22-23, 2003 .... 701
                     D. ANTONIA'S TRANSPORTATION TO THE FOSTER HOME ............................ 706
                     E. TIMING OF THE INJURY ................................................... 708
                     F. ANTONIA'S STAY AT THE FOSTER HOME ...................................... 708
                        1. Phone Conversation Between Seda and Cartagena ....................... 709
                        2. Events on January 25, 2003 .......................................... 710
                III. CLAIMS .................................................................... 711
                 IV. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................ 711
                  V. DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST CITY ................................ 712
                     A. CLAIMS ARISING FROM ANTONIA'S REMOVAL FROM HER
                         PARENTS' CUSTODY ...................................................... 712
                        1. Rooker-Feldman's Procedural Requirements Are Met .................... 713
                        2. Rooker-Feldman's Substantive Requirements Are Met ................... 715
                     B. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND CLAIMS AGAINST KINSEY
                         RIVERA, AND VORHEES ................................................... 718
                     C. LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO ANTONIA AT ACS FACILITY
                         UNDER COUNT TWO ....................................................... 719
                        1. Kinsey, Rivera, and Vorhees ......................................... 722
                        2. Webb-Alexander ...................................................... 722
                        3. Unnamed Defendants .................................................. 724
                     D. LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO ANTONIA AT ACS FACILITY
                          UNDER COUNT FOUR ..................................................... 725
                        1. Whether the City Can Be Liable Absent a Constitutional Violation
                              by a Named Defendant ............................................. 725
                        2. Whether the Constitutional Violations Were a Result of an Official
                              Policy or Custom ................................................. 726
                           a. Inadequate Training .............................................. 727
                           b. Inadequate Supervision ........................................... 729
                           c. Inadequate Hiring ................................................ 731
                        3. State Law Claims .................................................... 731
                     E. CITY LIABILITY FOR FOSTER AGENCY DEFENDANTS'
                         ACTIONS ............................................................... 733
                VI.  DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST FOSTER AGENCY
                       DEFENDANTS .............................................................. 734
                     A. WHETHER PHILLIPS AND GREEN HAVE STANDING TO BRING
                         INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS UNDER § 1983 ........................................ 734
                     B. SECTION 1983 CLAIMS .................................................... 736
                        1. Whether CHB and Seda Were Acting under Color of State Law ........... 736
                        2. Whether CHB and Seda Had the Requisite Deliberate Indifference ...... 738
                

                     C. STATE LAW CLAIMS ....................................................... 741
                        1. Whether CHB and Seda Acted Negligently .............................. 741
                        2. Proximate Cause ..................................................... 742
                        3. Qualified Immunity under Social Services Law § 419 .................. 743
                VII. ORDER ..................................................................... 744
                

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Antonia Phillips ("Antonia") by her parents, Gertral Green ("Green") and Antonio Phillips ("Phillips"), as well as Green and Phillips individually (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), brought this action asserting federal constitutional and state law violations. The case arose out of the removal of Antonia from Green's and Phillips's custody by New York City employees and the severe injuries Antonia sustained allegedly after her removal, either during her stay at a New York City facility for children awaiting placement in a foster home, or during her subsequent placement in a foster home. Plaintiffs have sued (1) the `City of New York (the "City") and several of its employees (collectively, the "City Defendants") who were involved in the decision to remove Antonia from her parents' custody and who cared for her prior to foster care placement; (2) Catholic Home' Bureau ("CHB"), a private, not-for-profit foster care agency that contracts with the City to provide foster care placement services, and its employee Maria Seda ("Seda") (collectively, the "Foster Agency Defendants"); and (3) Cielo Cartagena ("Cartagena"), the foster mother with whom Antonia was placed in foster care.¹

The City Defendants and the Foster Agency Defendants have each moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.²

II. FACTS³

A. REMOVAL OF ANTONIA AND HER SIBLINGS

Antonia was born on May 17, 2002 to Green and Phillips. On September 9 2002, Green informed the staff at the Baruch Houses, where she then resided with Phillips, Antonia, and her two other children, Alicia (born June 30, 1998) and Mykle (born July 17, 1997), that Phillips had hit Mykle with a belt, causing marks. Staff at the Baruch Houses contacted the City's Administration for Children's Services ("ACS"), and on September 11, 2002, an ACS caseworker filed a petition for neglect against both Green and Phillips in Manhattan Family Court. On November 18, 2002, Family Court Judge Sara P. Schechter ("Judge Schechter") issued an order (the "November 18, 2002 Order") determining that Phillips had used excessive corporal punishment and provided inadequate guardianship. Judge Schechter also issued an Order of Protection directing Phillips to stay out of the home and away from the children. The November 18, 2002 Order granted an "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal," paroling the children to Green under ACS supervision on the condition that she comply with all court directives, including enforcing the Order of Protection and attending counseling and parenting classes.⁴ Shortly thereafter, the case was assigned to an ACS court-ordered supervision unit and defendant Kakilia. Kinsey ("Kinsey") was assigned as ACS caseworker.

In December 2002 and January 2003, Kinsey documented growing concerns about Green's care of the children, specifically: that she had given Antonia away to another person; that she claimed to be employed at a Payless Shoe store but that the manager had never heard of her and there was no record of Green in the company's computer; that Phillips had visited with the children despite the Order of Protection; that Green was smoking marijuana in the apartment; that Antonia was allegedly staying for a few days with godparents, who denied caring for her; and that Green did not produce Antonia at ACS's request. Although Plaintiffs do not dispute that Kinsey documented these concerns, they dispute the "validity" of her concerns. However, Plaintiffs do not cite to any evidence to support their version of this dispute in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(e). and Local Rule 56.1(d).

On the afternoon of January 22, 2003, ACS convened a meeting after learning that Green had given Antonia away to another person, Raquel Simmons ("Simmons"), and that Green had called the police to accuse Simmons of kidnapping. The meeting was attended by Green, Antonia, Simmons, Kinsey, defendant ACS Supervisor II Jesus Rivera ("Rivera"), defendant ACS Child Protective Manager Kim Vorhees ("Vorhees"), and others. At the meeting, Green and Simmons exchanged verbal, insults, and the two women gave differing accounts of how long Simmons had been caring for Antonia: Green said a short time, while Simmons said since October 2002. That meeting caused Vorhees to become concerned about violations of the November 18, 2002 Order, the whereabouts of Antonia, and the ability of ACS to comply with the November 18, 2002 Order and supervise the Green home when the children were not there. After consultation with an ACS deputy director, Vorhees made the decision to remove all three children from Green's care. This decision was made on that...