Sulaymu-Bey v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-3563 (AMD) (SJB) |
| Parties | S. SHARPE SULAYMU-BEY, ALEISHA M. SULAYMU-BEY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; GLADYS CARRION, individually and in her capacity as Commissioner of ACS/NYCCS; SASHA DAWSON, individually and in her capacity as employee of ACS/NYCCS; KATHY ANN BEST, individually and in her capacity as employee of ACS/NYCCS; LINDA CATO, individually and in her capacity as employee of ACS/NYCCS; NIKIA WILLIAMS, individually and in her capacity as employee of ACS/NYCCS; MICHAELANGELO MEDINA; DETECTIVE DAVID SMALL, OFFICER TERRY RILEY, and SERGEANT CHARLES PIEFER, individually and in their capacities as employees of New York City Police Dept.; LUCIANA MICHEL, individually and as physician; KINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL; and HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
The pro se plaintiffs bring this § 1983 action against multiple defendants: City of New York, Gladys Carrion, Sasha Dawson, Kathy Ann Best, Linda Cato, Nikia Williams, Michaelangelo Medina, Detective David Small, Officer Terry Riley, Sergeant Charles Piefer, Luciana Michel, Kings County Hospital, and Health and Hospitals Corporation, The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their rights when the New York City Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") removed the plaintiff's children, and instituted Family Court proceedings. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons below, the plaintiffs' motion is denied, and the defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On April 25, 2014, ACS removed the plaintiffs' four daughters from their parents' custody without prior court authorization based on reports of neglect. Following proceedings in New York Family Court, the plaintiffs regained custody of three of the children in October of 2014, and the youngest child was returned in January of 2015.
On April 24, 2014, plaintiff Aleshia Sulaymu-Bey took her four daughters, N.A.S.B., M.S.S.B., A.S.S.B., and N.S.B., to the pediatric division of Kings County Hospital for medical check-ups. (ECF No. 32 ¶ 32.) The check-ups included a follow-up appointment for the plaintiffs' oldest daughter, N.A.S.B, who had fallen in a grocery store a couple of weeks earlier. (Id. ¶ 33.) Dr. Kisung Kim, a resident physician, examined the plaintiffs' youngest daughter, N.S.B., who was about a year old at the time. (Id. ¶ 35; see also ECF No. 35-11 at 3-4.) Dr. Kim told Ms. Sulaymu-Bey that N.S.B. was healthy, a conclusion reflected in medical records he prepared—NSB was "healthy, developed, and nourished." (ECF No. 32 ¶ 36.) The attending physician, defendant Dr. Luciana Michel, arrived shortly thereafter. (Id. ¶ 37.) Dr. Michel did not examine N.S.B., but asked Ms. Sulaymu-Bey whether she was giving N.S.B. the medicine that had been prescribed for her; Ms. Sulaymu-Bey responded that she used "alternative medicine," including herbs, because of her religious beliefs and citizenship in the "MoorishNation." (Id. ¶¶ 5, 37-38; see also ECF No. 35-11 at 3-4.) Dr. Michel thought that N.S.B. was underweight; the doctor became "agitated" and yelled at Ms. Sulaymu-Bey.2 (Id. ¶¶ 38, 40.) She scheduled a follow-up appointment for six weeks later, but prescribed no treatment. (Id. ¶ 40.) Ms. Sulaymu-Bey asked for a "second opinion" about N.S.B. (Id. ¶ 40.) Dr. Michel also concluded that the plaintiffs' oldest daughter, N.A.S.B., had a heart murmur.3 (Id. ¶ 46.)4
After Ms. Sulaymu-Bey and her children left the hospital, Dr. Michel filed a report with the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment ("SCR Report") about her "failure to thrive" diagnosis of N.S.B.5 (Id. ¶¶ 48-49.)
The next day, defendants Nakia Williams, Linda Cato, and Kathy-Ann Best—employees of ACS6 ("ACS defendants")—four New York Police Department officers—defendants Charles Piefer, Michaelangelo Medina, David Small, and Terry Riley ("police defendants")—and two other ACS employees went to the plaintiffs' house to investigate the allegations in the SCR Report.7 (ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 53, 206.) The plaintiffs would not let them in the house. Ms.Sulaymu-Bey told them that doctors saw N.S.B. the previous day and concluded that N.S.B. was "developed, hydrated, active and nourished." (Id. ¶ 53.) Ms. Sulaymu-Bey slid the notice for N.S.B.'s follow-up appointment under the door. (Id.) Eventually, one of the officers forced the door open; they took N.S.B. from Ms. Sulaymu-Bey's arms, applying pressure to Ms. Sulaymu-Bey's head and neck. (Id. ¶ 57.) They also took the other three children. (Id.) The defendants did not have court authorization for the emergency removal, which they conducted pursuant to § 1024 of the Family Court Act. (Id. ¶ 122.)
Later that day, defendant Gladys Carrion, Commissioner of ACS, filed four Article 10 petitions in Kings County Family Court seeking orders that the plaintiffs' children were "neglected;" Commissioner Carrion asserted that Ms. Sulaymu-Bey "fail[ed] to provide the children . . . with medical care," and "fail[ed] to provide the subject children . . . with proper supervision or guardianship." (ECF Nos. 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 35-4.) The petitions included Dr. Michel's diagnosis about N.S.B., and her observation that Ms. Sulaymu-Bey did not have "insight" into N.S.B.'s nutritional needs. (E.g., ECF No. 35-1 at 5.) The petitions asserted that the other children had not had medical appointments at Kings County Hospital in about eight months, and that N.A.S.B. had "a heart murmur, which [Ms. Sulaymu-Bey] denied." (E.g., id. at 6.) In addition, the petitions included allegations that the plaintiffs' home was "in a cluttered and unsanitary state." (Id.) The petitions noted that the Police Department had requested "an immediate psychiatric evaluation" of Ms. Sulaymu-Bey as a result of her "behavior and presentation." (Id.)
On the same day, Family Court Judge Robert Mulroy held an ex parte hearing.8 Judge Mulroy granted the Article 10 petitions; he ordered the temporary removal of the children, which he deemed "necessary to avoid imminent risk to [the] child[ren']s life or health," based on his determination that Ms. Sulaymu-Bey failed to provide the children with adequate medical care, that the plaintiffs' home was "cluttered and unsanitary," and that Ms. Sulaymu-Bey was "being investigated for possible emergency psych eval," and he ordered that the children be placed in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS. (ECF No. 35-6.) Judge Mulroy set a date for a permanency hearing on April 29, 2014. (ECF No. 35-5 at 7.)
The plaintiffs contacted defendant Sasha Dawson, an ACS employee, who told them about the upcoming hearing on April 29th. (ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 62-63.) The plaintiffs appeared at the April 29th hearing, which Judge Mulroy adjourned to the next day to hear the plaintiffs' application pursuant to § 1028 of the Family Court Act for the return of their children. (ECF No. 35-7 at 21.) The plaintiffs argued that as Moorish-Americans, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. (Id. at 15.)
After a series of motions and another hearing, Family Court Judge Daniel Turbow held a trial on August 27, September 3, September 10, September 29, and October 10, 2014. (ECF Nos. 35-9, 35-10, 35-11, 35-12, 35-13.) Six witnesses testified for ACS—Dr. Michel, Dr. Kim, Kathy Ann Best, Nikia Williams, Linda Cato, and Z. Najam. (ECF No. 35-9 at 2; ECF No. 35-11 at 2.) Ms. Sulaymu-Bey testified on her own behalf. (ECF No. 35-9 at 2.)
Dr. Michel testified that she reviewed Dr. Kim's examination and discussed her concerns about N.S.B.'s weight with Ms. Sulaymu-Bey. (ECF No. 35-9 at 3, 10-11.) She diagnosed N.S.B. with "failure to thrive" because N.S.B.'s weight had dropped from the 94th percentile atbirth to about the 14th percentile at the April 24th examination, which Dr. Michel attributed to "inadequate caloric intake." (ECF No. 35-9 at 5-6, 10.) Dr. Michel further testified that she filed the SCR report because of her diagnosis of failure to thrive, Ms. Sulaymu-Bey's lack of insight into N.S.B.'s condition, and Ms. Sulaymu-Bey's failure to take N.S.B. to medical appointments. (ECF No. 35-11 at 8.)
Judge Turbow asked Dr. Michel about Dr. Kim's medical note that N.S.B. was "nourished and developed." (ECF No. 35-11 at 5.) Dr. Michel explained that it may not be possible to identify "failure to thrive" due to weight loss on a mere physical observation. (Id.)
Defendants Williams and Cato testified that they went to the plaintiffs' home on April 25, 2014, to investigate the SCR Report and conduct a home visit. (ECF No. 35-9 at 16.) Ms. Sulaymu-Bey refused to let them in. (Id. at 21.) They called the police for "security and support." (Id. at 21.) When Ms. Sulaymu-Bey opened the door to her home after two and a half hours, Williams observed that N.S.B., the plaintiffs' youngest daughter, seemed "very pale" and "very small." (Id. at 18-19.) Defendant Cato did not think that N.S.B. could "stand up on her own" or "even sit on her own." (Id. at 25.)
On October 10, 2014, Judge Turbow dismissed the Article 10 petitions for the three oldest children "due to the agency's failure to prove neglect." (ECF No. 35-15.) Judge Turbow found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Sulaymu-Bey neglected N.S.B. "by reason of acts that caused the child to suffer from failure to thrive," and ordered that N.S.B. not be returned to the plaintiffs. (ECF No. 35-14 at 2.)
On January 13, 2015, Judge Turbow ordered that N.S.B. be released to Mr. Sulaymu-Bey's custody under ACS supervision for one year with certain conditions. (ECF No. 35-16 at 2.)
A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings applies the same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Bank of New York...
To continue reading
Request your trial