Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y.

• Decision Date: 05 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 10 Civ. 6005(RWS).,10 Civ. 6005(RWS).
• Citation: 103 F.Supp.3d 465
• Parties: Adrian SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

103 F.Supp.3d 465

Adrian SCHOOLCRAFT, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 6005(RWS).

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

Signed May 5, 2015.

103 F.Supp.3d 472

Law Office of Nathaniel B. Smith, by: Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq., New York, NY, for the Plaintiff.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, by:

103 F.Supp.3d 473

Ryan Shaffer, Esq., New York, NY, for the City Defendants.

Scoppetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie, LLP, by: Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Stephen Mauriello.

Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, by: Gregory J. Radomisli, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.

Callan, Koster Brady & Brennan, LLP, by: Matthew Joseph Koster, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant Lillian Aldana–Bernier.

Ivone, Devine & Jensen, LLP, by: Brian E. Lee, Esq., Lake Success, NY, for Defendant Isak Isakov.

Opinion

SWEET, District Judge.

I.	PRIOR PROCEEDINGS	475
II.	FACTS	476

A.	Schoolcraft's Career with NYPD	476
B.	Schoolcraft's 2008 Performance Review	477
C.	March 2009 Disciplinary Incident	478
D.	Psychological Evaluation, Restricted Duty Placement	478
E.	Schoolcraft's Report to Internal Affairs and NYPD's Response	480
F.	October 31, 2009—Schoolcraft's Tour of Duty	481
G.	October 31, 2009—Events Subsequent to Schoolcraft's Departure	482
H.	October 31, 2009—NYPD's First Entry into Schoolcraft's Apartment	486
I.	October 31, 2009—NYPD's Second Entry into Schoolcraft's Apartment	489
J.	Arrival at Jamaica Hospital	491
K.	Events Subsequent to Release from Jamaica Hospital	498

III.	APPLICABLE STANDARD	500
IV.	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLAIMS RELATING TO CITY DEFENDANTS AND DI MAURIELLO	501

A. Fourth Amendment Claims Survive Summary Judgment 501

i.	NYPD's Initial Entry into Schoolcraft's Home	501
ii.	NYPD's Decision to Remain In Schoolcraft's Home	503
iii.	Designation as an EDP	504

B. First Amendment Claim Survives Summary Judgment 506

i.	Schoolcraft Engaged in Protected Speech	507
ii.	Post–Suspension Free Speech Claim is Not Established	512
iii.	Pre–Suspension Speech Claim Survives Summary Judgment	513
iv.	Qualified Immunity Attaches to the First Amendment Claim	514

C. Monell Claims against City Defendants Survive Summary Judgment 514

i.	Well–Settled Custom	515
ii.	Failure to Train	517

D. Section 1983 Conspiracy Claim is Dismissed 518

i.	Intra–Corporate Conspiracy Doctrine	518
ii.	Conspiracy Claims as Between the City Defendants and Jamaica Hospital are Dismissed	519

V. REMAINING CLAIMS RELATING TO CITY DEFENDANTS AND DI MAURIELLO 520

A.	False Arrest and Imprisonment Claims Survive Summary Judgment	520
B.	Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim against City Defendants Survives Summary Judgment	521
C.	Common Law Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention Claim against City Defendants is Dismissed	521
D.	Negligent Disclosure of IAB Complaint Claim is Dismissed	522

i.	Public Policy Does Not Bar Claim	522
ii.	Schoolcraft's Claim is Dismissed	523

E.	Malicious Abuse of Process Claim is Dismissed	523
F.	DI Mauriello's Counterclaims are Dismissed	524
G.	DI Mauriello Remains a Defendant	527

i.	False Arrest and Use of Force Claims, and their State Law Analogues against DI Mauriello are Dismissed	527
ii.	Unlawful Search Claim Against DI Mauriello is Dismissed	528
iii.	Failure to Intercede Claim Against DI Mauriello Survives Summary Judgment	528
iv.	Warrantless Entry Claim against DI Mauriello Survives Summary Judgment	528

H. Claims with Respect to Other NYPD Officer Defendants 529

i.	Captain Trainor is Dismissed as a Defendant	529
ii.	Captain Lauterborn Remains a Defendant	529
iii.	Assistant Chief Nelson Remains a Defendant	529
iv.	Lieutenant Caughey Remains a Defendant	530

VI. CLAIMS RELATING TO JAMAICA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER 530

A.	Section 1983 Claims against JHMC are Dismissed	530
B.	State Law Medical Malpractice Claims against JMHC Survive Summary Judgment	534

i.	Expert Testimony Raises Triable Issues	534
ii.	JHMC Liable for Physicians' Alleged Malpractice	538

C.	Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision Claim against JHMC is Dismissed	539
D.	Negligence Per Se Claim against JHMC is Dismissed	540
E.	Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim against JHMC is Dismissed	540

VII. CLAIMS RELATING TO THE ATTENDING PHYSICIANS 540

A.	Section 1983 Claims against the Attending Physicians are Dismissed	541
B.	Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims against the Attending Physicians are Dismissed	541
C.	Declaratory Relief Claims Survive Summary Judgement	541
D.	State Law Claims Survive Summary Judgment	541
E.	False Arrest and Imprisonment Claims Survive Summary Judgment	541

VIII. CONCLUSION 542

103 F.Supp.3d 474

Plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft (“Schoolcraft” or “Plaintiff”); Defendants Christopher Broschart, Timothy Caughey, Kurt Duncan, Elise Hanlon, Theodore Lauterborn, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson, Frederick Sawyer, The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer (“City Defendants”); Defendant Deputy Inspector Steven Mauriello (“DI Mauriello”); Defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (“Jamaica Hospital” or “JHMC”); Defendant Dr. Lillian Aldana–Bernier (“Dr. Bernier”), and Defendant Dr. Isak Isakov (“Dr. Isakov”) (collectively “the Attending Physicians”); all move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the parties' motions

103 F.Supp.3d 475

are granted in part and denied in part.

I. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff initiated this action alleging Section 1983 and a number of state law causes of action, by filing a summons and complaint on August 10, 2010. Plaintiff filing an Amended Complaint on September 13, 2010, in response to which Jamaica Hospital filed a motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed Schoolcraft's Section 1983 claim against Jamaica Hospital with leave to replead, and retained supplemental jurisdiction with respect to the state law claims against Jamaica Hospital. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 6005 RWS, 2011 WL 1758635 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2011).

On May 9, 2012, Schoolcraft submitted a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to, inter alia, include a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to his internal reporting of improper conduct at the 81st Precinct. That request was denied in this Court's Opinion dated June 14, 2012 on the basis that Schoolcraft's internal reporting was made in his capacity as a public employee, and therefore not protected under the First Amendment. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 6005 RWS, 2012 WL 2161596 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2012). On June 20, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a letter to the Court requesting reconsideration. The motion to reconsider was also denied in the Court's Opinion dated July 20, 2012 on the basis that Plaintiff, in his briefing regarding the motion to amend, never raised the issue of protected speech made after his suspension on October 31, 2009 and did not raise the argument that he had no duty to report misconduct following his suspension. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 6005 RWS, 2012 WL 2958176 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2012). On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff wrote to the Court requesting leave to amend his complaint to add a First Amendment claim relating to the NYPD's alleged harassment after October 31, 2009 and for unlawful seizure and detention on October 31, 2009. The Court granted him leave to plead a First Amendment claim with respect to the instances of harassment and suspension. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 6005 RWS, 2012 WL 3960118 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012).

On October 1, 2012, Schoolcraft filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) that included the First Amendment claim. DI Mauriello filed a motion seeking leave to amend his answer and assert counterclaims against Schoolcraft on September 24, 2013. The Court denied his request as part of an Opinion filed November 21, 2013. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 296 F.R.D. 231, 233 (S.D.N.Y.2013). DI Mauriello moved for reconsideration, and the Court granted his motion on March 14, 2014. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 298 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y.2014). On March 18, 2014, DI Mauriello filed his amended Answer and Counterclaims.

The SAC remained the operative complaint through the end of 2014, including for the extensive period of fact and expert discovery. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff moved for permission to amend the SAC. While that motion was pending, all parties moved for summary judgment.

Plaintiff received leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) on January 16, 2015. Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 81 F.Supp.3d 295, 298-99, No. 10 CIV. 6005 RWS, 2015 WL 252413, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015). Subsequently, all parties save Plaintiff filed amended motions for summary judgment. The motions were heard on submission and marked fully submitted on March 6, 2015.

Subsequently, Plaintiff requested that a reply affidavit from Dr. Bernier be stricken, which City Defendants opposed, and

103 F.Supp.3d 476

DI Mauriello requested that he be allowed to reopen discovery to obtain information regarding Plaintiff's involvement in a film relating to the substance of this case.

II. FACTS

The facts are principally derived from Schoolcraft's and Defendants' Statements of Undisputed Facts submitted in support of their motions for summary judgment pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, read in conjunction with the parties' responses to the 56.1 Statements.¹

Denials that the evidence cited in support of a particular statement does not support that statement, in instances where the evidence uncontrovertibly does support that statement, are treated as admissions. Denials without support or explanation are treated as admissions. Statements characterized as “additional undisputed facts” included in Dr. Bernier's responses to Schoolcraft's 56.1 statements but absent from Dr. Bernier's 56.1 Statement are considered in dispute. (Compare Dr. Bernier's...