V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad, 07-cv-213(DLI)(JO).
| Decision Date | 30 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-cv-1281(DLI)(JO).,No. 07-cv-213(DLI)(JO).,07-cv-213(DLI)(JO).,07-cv-1281(DLI)(JO). |
| Citation | 581 F.Supp.2d 365 |
| Parties | V.S., individually and on behalf of her infant child, T.S., Plaintiffs, v. Nadira MUHAMMAD, individually and as caseworker; Natalie Arthur, individually and as supervisor; Brenda Wilson, individually and as manager; John Mattingly, individually and as Commissioner; Debra Esernio-Jenssen, individually and as physician; Long Island Jewish Medical Center, North Shore—Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. and City of New York, Defendants. Denes Q. and Ann Marie C., individually, and on behalf of their infant daughter, Y.Q., Plaintiffs, v. Janet Caesar, individually and as caseworker; Josette Lafond-Faviere, individually and as supervisor; Ysrnisi Holloway, individually and as supervisor; Deanna Johnston, individually and as supervisor; Sherley Ferguson, individually and as manager; John Mattingly, individually and as commissioner; Debra Esernio-Jenssen, individually and as physician; North Shore University Hospital at Forest Hills; Long Island Jewish Medical Center; North Shore—Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.; and City of New York, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Carolyn A. Kubitschek, Christopher S. Weddle, Lansner & Kubitschek, for plaintiffs.
Martin John Bowe, city of N.Y. Law Dept., for defendants City of N.Y., Nadira Muhammas, Natalie Arthur, Brenda Wilson, John Mattingly.
Emily Sweet, for defendants City of New York, Josette Lafond-Faviere, Yesrnisi Holloway, John Mattinly, Sherley Ferguson, Danna Johnston.
Jonathan B. Bruno, Borgeest & Ryan, LLP, for defendants Debra Esernio-Jenssen, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System.
In each of the above-captioned cases, the infant plaintiffs were alleged to have suffered serious injuries while they were not in the presence of their parents. When the parent plaintiffs discovered the injuries, they promptly sought medical attention. At the hospitals to which the infants were taken, both not only received medical care, but also were screened for signs of child abuse. A pediatrician diagnosed their injuries as the result of physical abuse. The parent plaintiffs could not explain the cause of the injuries and the hospitals, pursuant to their obligation under state law, reported the pediatrician's suspicions to the state. New York City's Administration for Children's Services ("ACS") then investigated and prosecuted the parents for child abuse in the Queens County Family Court, which removed the infants from parental custody. The infants were separated from the parent plaintiffs for an extended period of time— more than a year in one case and two months in the other. The child abuse charges were eventually dismissed against the parents, who along with the infants, filed suit in this court against the pediatrician, the hospitals involved, and their common corporate parent (collectively the "medical defendants"),1 as well as ACS caseworkers, their supervisors, ACS Commissioner John Mattingly, and the City of New York ("the City")(collectively, the "City defendants").
Plaintiffs claim that defendants' conduct violated their rights under the Constitution as well as federal and state laws. They assert federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for violation of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They also bring state law claims of malicious prosecution, unlawful interference with parental custody of children, unlawful imprisonment, gross negligence and medical malpractice.2
The medical defendants move to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). As to plaintiffs' federal claims, made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), they contend that they are not state actors and cannot be held liable under Section 1983. They also invoke the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to argue that the court does not have jurisdiction over claims that effectively challenge Family Court rulings. On plaintiffs' state law claims, they contend that they are statutorily immune under state law.
The City defendants in the Denes Q. matter (Docket No. 07-cv-1281) move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Their counterparts in the V.S. matter (Docket No. 07-cv-213), based on partial discovery, move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Both sets of motions largely rely on claims for qualified immunity.
The court considers these four motions in tandem. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted as to plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim under Section 1983. The City defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the Denes Q. matter is also granted as to plaintiffs' abuse of process claim. The motions are denied as to all other claims.
The court first considers the three Rule 12 motions based on factual allegations in the complaint. The court accepts as true all well-pleaded and plausible factual allegations and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Dangler v. New York City Off Track Betting Corp., 193 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir.1999) and Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir. 2007). The factual recitation below is supplemented by information to which the court has taken judicial notice.
On August 19, 2004, V.S. placed her son T.S. in the care of her mother Ve.S., and left their residence in Forest Hills, Queens to run errands. (Compl. ¶ 22 (07cv213 ECF Dkt. Entry No. 1)). When she returned, she noticed that her son's right leg appeared swollen (Id. ¶ 23). When the swelling worsened, she took him to the emergency room at SCH in New Hyde Park, New York, a facility operated by the LIJ Medical Center (Id. ¶¶ 12 & 23). Doctors there took an X-ray of T.S.'s leg and determined that he had suffered a fracture of the right femur. (Id. ¶ 24). The infant was admitted to the hospital for in-patient care. Plaintiffs contend that the infant should have been released as soon as a cast was placed his leg. (Id. ¶ 30).
On August 20, 2004, Dr. Debra Esernio-Jenssen, a pediatrician at SCH, examined T.S., reviewed his medical records, and concluded that V.S. had shaken the infant or inflicted such severe head trauma that the infant had in fact suffered a fractured skull and internal brain hemorrhage. (Id. ¶ 27). Plaintiffs contend that this diagnosis was false as the infant had only suffered a broken leg. (Id. ¶ 28). Dr. Esernio-Jenssen refused to discharge T.S. to his mother and admitted the infant to SCH, which the plaintiffs contend, was done to gather evidence of child abuse. (Id. ¶ 31-32). Dr. Esernio-Jenssen ordered full-body X-rays and an MRI scan of the head, which revealed no skull fracture or brain hemorrhages. (Id. ¶¶ 31-35). Nevertheless, the medical defendants contacted the Central Register of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services and reported that V.S. had shaken T.S. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37). The Central Register forwarded the matter to ACS, which dispatched its investigators to SCH. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41). At the hospital, an ACS investigator and Dr. Esernio-Jenssen jointly questioned V.S. about her son's injuries. (Id. ¶ 43). When she was asked how T.S. sustained the injury, V.S. was unable to provide an explanation. (Id. ¶ 43). Dr. Esernio-Jenssen allegedly told the ACS investigator that the infant's head trauma was caused by his mother, and his leg fracture had occurred while he was in the care of his grandmother. (Id. ¶ 43).
On August 24, 2004, pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court Act, ACS filed an abuse petition with the Family Court in Queens County, alleging that V.S. and her mother, Ve.S., had abused T.S. (Id. ¶ 46). More than a year later, on October 17, 2005, during the Family Court trial on the abuse petition in which several physicians including Dr. Esernio-Jenssen testified, the ACS withdrew the petition against V.S. and amended the petition to allege medical neglect against the grandmother, Ve.S. (Id. ¶ 49). ACS then restored infant T.S. to the care of his mother after almost 14 months of separation. (Id.). On November 22, 2006, the Family Court held that Ve.S. had medically neglected the infant T.S. and placed his physical well-being in imminent danger.
The Family Court Judge found that while V.S. was away from the home in the afternoon of August 19, 2004, Ve.S. slipped in the kitchen while holding T.S. in her arms. . Ve.S. did not disclose the fall to her daughter until after the infant had been taken to the emergency room. (Id. at 10 & 17). Ve.S. testified that prior to August 19, she had never fallen with the child, had any accidents with him or shaken him. The Family Court deemed her failure to inform V.S. as medical neglect because it delayed his access to medical care. On January 16, 2007, V.S., on behalf of herself and her son, filed Civil Action No. 07cv213. .
On January 4, 2006, Ann-Marie C. took her 22 month-old infant daughter, Y.Q., to her regular babysitter and went to work. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26 (07cv1281 ECF Dkt. Entry No. 1)). Later in the day, the babysitter transferred the child to the care of Y.Q.'s paternal grandmother. When Y.Q.'s father, Denes Q., returned home that evening, he discovered a discoloration on Y.Q.'s rib cage. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28). That night, Denes Q. and Ann-Marie C. brought Y.Q. to the emergency room at FHH in Forest Hills. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29). FHH filed a report with the Central Register,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taravella v. Town Of Wolcott
......in the lawfulness of his actions." Conn. ex. rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty, 346 F.3d 84, . 101-02 (2d ...constitutional rights."); V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad, 581 F.Supp.2d 365, 385. (E.D.N.Y.2008) ("Finally, even ......
-
Ying v. City of N.Y.
...making a time-sensitive decision to remove a child from a potentially dangerous and abusive environment. See V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad, 581 F. Supp. 2d 365, 388 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (noting defendants' argument that "in light of [the doctor's diagnosis of injury caused by child abuse], the c......
-
McLoughlin v. Rensselaer Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 1:18-CV-0487 (LEK/CFH)
...have declined to find that it is per se implausible for an infant to be conscious of their confinement. See V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad, 581 F. Supp. 2d 365, 384 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (rev'd on other grounds V.S. v. Muhammad, 595 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that it was plausible that a 22 ......
-
Denes Q. v. Caesar
...42 U.S.C. §1983, as well as the City defendants' motion with respect to a state law abuse of process claim. V.S. v. Muhammad. 581 F. Supp. 2d 365 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Irizarry, J.). The plaintiffs and the City defendants later executed a settlement agreement, which the Court approved in Septemb......