Sobel v. Prudenti

• Decision Date: 18 June 2014
• Docket Number: No. 12 CV 3258DRHWDW.,12 CV 3258DRHWDW.
• Parties: Gail SOBEL, individually, and AES and RJS by Gail Sobel as their parent and natural guardian, Plaintiff, v. A. Gail PRUDENTI, as Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Office of Court Administration, Administrative Arm of the Unified Court System of the State of New York, Harriet Weinberger, as Director of OCA Attorneys for Children Program for the Second Judicial Department, Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in her official and personal capacity, Robert Truzollino, Nassau County Commissioner of Jurors, Kathleen Driscoll Hopkins, as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for Nassau County, Maureen O'Connell, as Nassau County Clerk, and John Does 1–10, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

25 F.Supp.3d 340

Gail SOBEL, individually, and AES and RJS by Gail Sobel as their parent and natural guardian, Plaintiff

v.A. Gail PRUDENTI, as Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Office of Court Administration, Administrative Arm of the Unified Court System of the State of New York, Harriet Weinberger, as Director of OCA Attorneys for Children Program for the Second Judicial Department, Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in her official and personal capacity, Robert Truzollino, Nassau County Commissioner of Jurors, Kathleen Driscoll Hopkins, as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for Nassau County, Maureen O'Connell, as Nassau County Clerk, and John Does 1–10, Defendants.

No. 12 CV 3258DRHWDW.

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

Signed June 18, 2014.

The Law Firm of Jeffrey L. Solomon, PLLC by Jeffrey L. Solomon, Esq., Woodbury, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York by Anne C. Leahey, Esq., Hauppauge, NY, for the State Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

HURLEY, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiffs Gail Sobel (“Plaintiff” or “Sobel”), individually, and AES and RJS (“AES and RJS”) by Sobel as their parent and natural guardian (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed the present action against A. Gail Prudenti (“Prudenti”), as Chief Administrative Judge of the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”), Harriet Weinberger, as Director of OCA Attorneys for Children Program for the Second Judicial Department (“Weinberger”), Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in her official and personal capacity (“Zimmerman”), Robert Truzzolino, Nassau County Commissioner of Jurors (“Truzzolino”),¹ Kathleen Driscoll Hopkins, as Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for Nassau County (“Hopkins”), Maureen O'Connell, as Nassau County Clerk (“O'Connell”), and John Does 1–10 (collectively, “Defendants”), under Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of New York, claiming that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights during a child support dispute in state court.

Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) on the bases of absolute judicial immunity, the Younger abstention doctrine, the domestic relations exception, and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under Title II of the ADA. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Complaint and are presumed true for purposes of this motion.

Sobel, an adjunct college professor who earns approximately $30,000 per year, resides in Nassau County, New York, and is the mother and sole legal custodian of minor children, AES and RJS. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 5.) Prudenti is the “Chief Administrative Judge of the OCA,” who is “responsible for the operation and function of the OCA,” and the daily operations of the Family Court and Supreme Court. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) Zimmerman, an elected Justice of the Family Court, “was appointed as the acting Supervising Justice of the Matrimonial Center” of the Supreme Court in Nassau County. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.) Truzzolino, “the Nassau County Commissioner of Jurors,” is “the designated ADA coordinator for the Supreme Court” in Nassau County. (Id. ¶ 13.) Hopkins is the Clerk of the Supreme Court in Nassau County, and “is required by law to consult with the designated ADA liaison for the Supreme Court [in Nassau County] in order to determine which reasonable accommodations must be granted to persons asserting their rights under the ADA.” (Id. ¶ 14.) In addition, “Hopkins is responsible for maintaining the completeness and integrity of the files for each and every case pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.” (Id. ¶ 15.) O'Connell is the Nassau County Clerk, and “is responsible for maintaining the completeness and integrity of files for cases pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.” (Compl. ¶ 16.) Weinberger “is the Supervisor, or Supervising Justice of the OCA's Attorney for Children Program (the “Program”)” for the Appellate Division, Second Department, and “is responsible for, inter alia, the function and operation of the Program, including but not limited to the supervision and training of attorneys who perform services for and pursuant to the Program.” (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.)²

Sobel is the Respondent in a proceeding that is currently pending before the Supreme Court in Nassau County, captioned, “Lew v. Sobel ” (“Pending State Court Action”). (Id. ¶ 24.) The Pending State Court Action was brought by Mark Lew (“Lew”), “a wealthy pediatrician and businessman, and the father of AES and RJS, born out of wedlock to Plaintiff and Lew, to terminate his child support obligations to Plaintiff and [AES and RJS]” and gain custody of AES and RJS. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 27.) After trial of the matter, an order was issued by the Supreme Court on April 28, 2006 (“April 28, 2006 Order”), which denied a change of custody to Lew, and denied the termination of Lew's child support obligation. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.) Despite Lew's right to visitation pursuant to the April 28, 2006 Order, Lew has not visited his children for over six years. (Id. ¶ 26.) Since the time of the trial, “nearly 40 post-trial motions were made in the Supreme Court.” (Id. ¶ 30.)

“Even though the April 28, 2006 Order reserved to the Family Court all matters ‘of child support and ancillary issues,’ ... the Supreme Court issued multiple orders, without conducting any hearings or evidentiary proceedings.” (Compl. ¶ 33.) Lew appealed the April 28, 2006 Order and, on December 26, 2007, the Appellate Division held, “although apparently not asked to do so in the appeal,” that half of the monthly child support payments should be put in the escrow account of Plaintiff's attorney pending Plaintiff's certification to the Supreme Court that she had not interfered with Lew's visitation rights under the April 28, 2006 Order. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 48.) In addition, the Appellate Division “retroactively reallocate[d] the forensic and related trials costs from 90% for Lew and 10% to Plaintiff, to 75% to Plaintiff, and 25% to Lew, without considering statements of net worth or considering the impact of the order on [AES and RJS], as required by law.” (Id. ¶ 48.)

The appellate oral argument occurred “in a small room on the third floor of the building, away from the public, and in a secure area of the building, inaccessible except by court personnel,” rather than in the courtroom, and was attended by the parties, their attorneys, Lew's wife, and the wife of Lew's attorney. (Id. ¶¶ 42, 44.) The wife of Lew's attorney served on bar association committees with some of the Justices of the Appellate Division, and Lew contributed to the campaigns of political and judicial candidates. (Id. ¶ 46.) Ann Block, the appointed Law Guardian for AES and RJS, did not attend the oral argument as her appointment had expired upon the termination of the trial and her submission of an appellate brief. (Id. ¶ 45.) After Block's appointment expired, during the years 2007 through 2010, AES and RJS did not have an attorney or law guardian, even though “dozens of motions were filed.” (Compl. ¶ 50.) For much of 2007 through the present, Plaintiff represented herself, pro se. (Id. ¶ 58.)

Lew moved in the Supreme Court for a reallocation of the trial expenses as per the Appellate Division's Order. (Id. ¶ 62.) “As Lew made no effort [ ] to visit the parties' [children] from April 2006 to the time of the motion and beyond, Plaintiff cross-moved and certified to the Supreme Court that she did not interfere with Lew's visitation rights, as per the Appellate Division Order.” (Id. ) Plaintiff, who was proceeding pro se at the time, was “unaware of her right to contest the Supreme Court's jurisdiction,” or of the right for AES and RJS to be represented in the post-trial proceedings that affected “their right to be supported by their father.” (Id. ¶ 64.) The Family Court provides greater resources to assist pro se litigants than does the Supreme Court's pro se office. (Id. ¶ 65.)

On March 9, 2008, Supreme Court Justice Randi Sue Marber, without having held a hearing or receiving any evidence regarding Plaintiff's certification that she had not interfered with Lew's visitation, rendered a decision requiring Plaintiff to pay nearly $70,000 to Lew in a reallocation of fees (“March 2008 Order”). (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 69.) The March 2008 Order “completely misconstrued, or deliberately ignored the express language of the Appellate Division Order, which made interference with ‘visitation’ the operative criteria[,] not ‘alienation’.” (Id. ¶ 69.) Justice Marber also “failed to ensure that the interests of [AES and RJS] were represented.” (Id. ) Plaintiff appealed the March 2008 Order, but did not perfect the appeal as she did not have counsel to assist her or adequate resources to manage the appeal on her own. (Id. ¶ 74.) Lew failed to timely perfect his cross-appeal. (Id. ) Plaintiff also moved to renew and reargue the March 2008 Order (“Renewal Motion”), and Lew moved to reargue portions of it. (Id. )

In February 2009, the case was reassigned to Justice Robert Ross, who issued a summary decision on December, 3, 2010 denying Sobel's Renewal Motion. (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 76, 78.) The issuance of the decision two and one-half years after the Renewal Motion was submitted, was in violation of “DCM guidelines,” which requires a decision within 60 days of the motion's submission, and deprived Plaintiffs the benefit of one half of the monthly child support from Lew. (Id. ¶¶ 76, 77.) Prior to his issuance of a decision on the Renewal Motion, Justice Ross “admitted on the record of proceedings that the Supreme Court...