FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK
`SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF ORLEANS
`________________________________________
`
`AB 511 DOE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 20-46602
`
`LYNDONVILLE CENTRAL SCHOOL
`DISTRICT; LYNDONVILLE ELEMENTARY
`SCHOOL,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________
`
`
`RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF
`MATERIAL FACTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff submits the following in response to defendants Statement of Material Facts in
`
`support of its motion for summary judgment.
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`5.
`
`Lyndonville Central School District is a public school district.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed only to the extent that plaintiff has no information regarding the
`
`establishment of the Lyndonville Central School District and defendants cite nothing in the
`
`record as required by Uniform Rule §202.8-G.
`
`6.
`
`Lyndonville Central School District owns, controls, oversees, operates and
`
`manages Lyndonville Elementary School.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed only to the extent that plaintiff has no information regarding the
`
`relationship between defendants and defendants cite nothing in the record as required by
`
`Uniform Rule §202.8-G.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`1 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff was in fifth grade during the 1986-1987 school year.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`8 .
`
`Plaintiff alleges that between 1986 and 1987, he was sexually abused by his fifth-
`
`grade teacher, Terry Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`9.
`
`The abuse occurred at Houseman’s residence, as well as at Lyndonville
`
`Elementary School.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed. Plaintiff testified to a single incident at Houseman’s
`
`residence (Ex. A, p. 56-58) and to dozens of incidents on defendants’ property (Ex. A, p. 68, 80).
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff testified that the first incident of abuse occurred at Houseman’s residence
`
`during a sleepover.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`11.
`
`Houseman approached Plaintiff’s mother and invited Plaintiff to spend the night
`
`at Houseman’s residence before attending an alleged conference the next day.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff’s mother permitted Plaintiff to spend the night at Houseman’s residence.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff’s mother dropped Plaintiff off at Houseman’s residence.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff testified that his parents knew he was spending time with Houseman but
`
`were not alarmed.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Plaintiff testified that he did not know if his father was
`
`informed, only his mother, nor was he questioned regarding his mother’s attitude beyond that she
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`gave permission (Ex. A, p. 58).
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff testified that he had a very close relationship with both of his parents at
`
`the time of the alleged abuse, and until each of their deaths.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff testified that his parents were loving and caring, and that they provided
`
`discipline.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff does not recall his parents ever being concerned that Houseman was
`
`Plaintiff’s teacher.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Plaintiff’s testimony was that he does not recall what his parents
`
`thought at all about Houseman (Ex. A, p. 51).
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff did not tell anyone at the District about the abuse perpetrated against him
`
`by Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff did not tell his parents or sister about the abuse perpetrated against him
`
`by Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff did not tell anyone about the abuse until sometime after he was married
`
`in 2009.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff testified that at the time, he had no reason to believe that anyone at the
`
`District knew of the abuse being perpetrated against him by Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Plaintiff’s response was to a question regarding whether at the
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`time of the abuse, he had any reason to believe that defendants knew of any student being
`
`sexually abused prior to plaintiff being abused. He testified that at the time he did not, but
`
`subsequently concluded that “the district knew stuff was going on” (Ex. A, pp. 91-92). He
`
`further testified to a teacher seeing the abuse and to behavior by Houseman in public areas of the
`
`school and in the presence of others at the school that should have led to investigation of
`
`Houseman (Ex. A, pp. 68-74; 75-79; 107-108; 112-113; Ex. M, p. 1).
`
`
`22.
`
`In April 1970 Terry Houseman was appointed by the Lyndonville Central
`
`Terry Houseman
`
`School District to a three-year probationary position as a fifth-grade teacher.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`23.
`
`Terry Houseman began his three-year probationary term on September 1, 1970.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`24.
`
`In 1971, Houseman received a positive evaluation and was rated as “Very
`
`Effective.”
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Although Houseman generally received a checked box rating of
`
`very effective in most categories, the comments section includes: “There is an aloofness which
`
`hinders his rapport with them at times. He gives the impression of being a bit too critical at
`
`times.” (Marek Aff., Ex. A, p. 114; Ex. J). It also included comments that Houseman was very
`
`concerned about individual problems of children, that he has a concern for children’s
`
`weaknesses, and that he was spending “much time before school” with individual students. (Ex.
`
`J)
`
`25.
`
`Terry Houseman was granted tenure by the District as an elementary teacher on
`
`March 12, 1973, effective September 1, 1973.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`4 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`26.
`
`In 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989,
`
`Houseman again received positive evaluations, and in each year was rated as “Outstanding.”
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that the checkboxes on the forms do not all indicate
`
`a rating of outstanding, but instead vary between effective, very effective and outstanding with
`
`some notations to “usually” having good judgment and some boxes containing question marks.
`
`27.
`
`Houseman received positive evaluations both before and after the abuse alleged
`
`by Plaintiff.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`28.
`
`For almost two decades, Houseman received nothing but positive evaluations
`
`from his supervisors.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that a reading of the full evaluations and not just the
`
`check boxes indicate that he could be aloof and too critical. Bizarrely, he was also praised for
`
`teaching fifth graders a lesson on psychotherapy during which he encouraged students to
`
`approach him with confidential information. His evaluator throughout the 1980s, former
`
`elementary school principal Russell Martino, described Houseman as his friend (Ex. B, p. 27, Ex,
`
`N, p. [254]), and during the criminal trial, Houseman acknowledged they had been friends since
`
`he began teaching that the school (Ex. N, [372]).
`
`29.
`
`There are no records of any complaints or concerns regarding Houseman acting
`
`inappropriately with children prior to 1990.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The records produced by defendants indicate that there were
`
`concerns regarding Houseman including being too aloof and critical of students (Marek Aff., Ex.
`
`A, p. 114) and that Houseman should take special care to keep oral evaluations of students
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`positive (Marek Aff., Ex. A, p. 106). Moreover, as stated in the presentencing report by Mr.
`
`Martino, there were complaints regarding Houseman which defendants apparently failed to
`
`document in his file (Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 7) as they do not appear in the file provided by
`
`defendants.
`
`December 1990 Criminal Matter
`
`30.
`
`Former Elementary School principal Russell Martino testified that one evening in
`
`December 1990, he received a telephone call from the parents of an elementary school student,
`
`who stated that their son had been touched inappropriately by Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed only to the extent the call was made by the boyfriend of the
`
`child’s mother, not a parent (Ex. B, p. 34).
`
`31. Mr. Martino testified that immediately after receiving the telephone call, he went
`
`to the family’s house to speak with the parents.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`32. Mr. Martino testified that after speaking with the parents, either he or the parents
`
`contacted the Orleans County Sheriff’s Office to report the allegations.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`33.
`
`Records from the Orleans County Clerk indicate that on December 10, 1990, Mr.
`
`Martino called in a report of possible child sexual abuse by Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`34.
`
`On December 11, 1990, Mr. Martino and then-superintendent Richard Pucher,
`
`spoke to Houseman about the allegations against him.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`35. Mr. Martino and Mr. Pucher encouraged Houseman to turn himself in to the
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`Orleans County Sheriff, which Houseman did.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino testified that they met with Houseman in the
`
`morning and “after we met with him, he did go to the sheriff’s department.” There is no
`
`statement indicating that Mr. Martino and Mr. Pucher “encouraged Houseman to turn himself in”
`
`(Ex. B, pp. 40). The presentencing report indicates that Houseman did not go to the sheriff’s
`
`department until after school hours, was not informed by Mr. Martino and Mr. Pucher that
`
`allegations were being made against him and was not aware of the allegations against him until
`
`meeting with law enforcement (Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 4).
`
`36.
`
`After surrendering to the Orleans County Sheriff, Houseman was arrested, taken
`
`to the Town of Ridgeway Court, arraigned, and released on his own recognizance.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`37. Within a day after Houseman’s arrest, Mr. Martino called a staff meeting and
`
`informed the other teachers at the Elementary School of the allegations against Houseman.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`38.
`
`After December 11, 1990, Houseman never returned to the classroom, and never
`
`again taught at the District.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent that Mr. Martino testified that “to my knowledge”
`
`Houseman did not return to the classroom indicating a lack of clear recall, and there are no
`
`unequivocal records documenting his last day in class (Ex. B, p. 40).
`
`39.
`
`Upon learning of the allegations of sexual abuse, the District immediately
`
`reported the allegation to law enforcement, and removed Houseman from the classroom.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino testified that after receiving a call from the
`
`boyfriend of the abused child’s mother, he went to their home to further investigate before
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`contacting police. He further confirmed that even after contacting the police, Houseman was
`
`allowed to teach the following morning prior to his meeting with Mr. Martino and Mr. Pucher
`
`(Ex. B, pp. 38-40). The presentencing report indicates that Houseman was allowed to be around
`
`children all of the school day after the allegations were made and did not meet with Mr. Martino
`
`and Mr. Pucher until after school (Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 5).
`
`40.
`
`Houseman resigned from his position with the District on January 14, 1991.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed. Houseman was granted a disability retirement which was
`
`continued even after his criminal conviction (Marek Aff., Ex. A, pp. 3, 5).
`
`41.
`
`Houseman also lost his teaching license.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`42.
`
`In or about August and September 1992, Houseman was tried and convicted of
`
`sexual abuse.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed. Houseman was convicted on August 15, 1992.
`
`43.
`
`Houseman had no contact with the criminal justice system prior to his arrest in
`
`1990.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff is not the same student who reported abuse by Houseman in 1990.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`No Notice of Houseman’s Dangerous Propensities
`
`45.
`
`Prior to the 1990 Criminal Matter the District had no notice that Houseman had a
`
`propensity for sexual abuse.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. “Notice” is not a fact but a legal issue to be decided in this
`
`case. As such, it is improper for it to be included in a statement of material facts. Additionally, it
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`is inappropriate for defendants to indicate that notice is somehow “undisputed” by this plaintiff,
`
`particularly where defendants are aware of other related testimony and evidence which address
`
`their actual and/or constructive notice of Houseman’s propensity to engage in inappropriate
`
`sexual relationships with minors.
`
`There is ample evidence that defendants knew or should have known of Houseman’s
`
`dangerous propensities despite the self-serving denials of former employees cited by defendants,
`
`including teacher Ruth Bane’s observation of abuse, inappropriate touching of students and
`
`suggestive behavior in the hallways when other teachers were present, and violations of accepted
`
`safety standards of the period which allowed multiple documented sexual predators to be
`
`employed at the school. See Ex. H; Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. A, pp. 68-74, 75-79, 86-89, 91-93, 107-
`
`108, 112-113; Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 7).
`
`Russell Martino, Elementary School Principal 1980-1997
`
`46.
`
`Russell Martino began working for the District in 1964 as a teacher, and was
`
`principal of the Elementary School from 1980 until his retirement in 1997.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`47. Mr. Martino evaluated Mr. Houseman on many occasions while he was principal,
`
`and never gave Houseman a negative evaluation.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed. In addition to having supervision over Houseman, Mr.
`
`Martino considered Houseman his friend (Ex. B, p. 27, Ex, N, p. [254]), and during the criminal
`
`trial, Houseman acknowledged they had been friends since he began teaching at the school (Ex.
`
`N, [372]). Mr. Martino provided Houspeman with the name of a criminal attorney to contact
`
`when he was charged in 1990 (Ex. B, p. 66).
`
`48. Mr. Martino interacted with Houseman daily while Houseman was teaching at the
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`District and while Mr. Martino was principal.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino did not testify to daily interaction with Houseman,
`
`he merely testified that he saw Houseman every day when he was walking around the building in
`
`the morning (Ex. B, pp. 44-45). The affidavit of Patrick Whipple establishes that Mr. Martino
`
`was not in Houseman’s fifth-grade classroom during the year plaintiff was abused. (Ex. L, p. 4).
`
`49. Mr. Martino knew Houseman for over twenty years, often witnessed him
`
`interacting with students, and never saw Houseman engage in any type of inappropriate contact
`
`with children.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Houseman had been employed at the school for twenty years
`
`prior to the report leading to his arrest, and Mr. Martino described this employment as the basis
`
`for his knowing Houseman (Ex. B, p. 22). They did not work in the same building until 1980
`
`(Ex. B, p. 22). Mr. Martino testified that after he became principal in 1980, he saw Houseman
`
`every school day and during that time, he would see him interacting with students (Ex. B, p. 44).
`
`He did not characterize how often he observed interactions. He confirmed to law enforcement at
`
`the time of Houseman’s arrest that he had observed Houseman hugging students, but he
`
`considered this physical interaction between a teacher and fifth grade students appropriate
`
`(Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 7). The affidavits and testimony of plaintiff and Patrick Whipple establish
`
`that Mr. Martino was never in Houseman’s fifth-grade classroom during the year plaintiff was
`
`abused. (CITE – and confirm the word never)
`
`50.
`
`The first time someone approached Mr. Martino with allegations that Houseman
`
`acted inappropriately with a student was in December 1990.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed that this was Mr. Martino’s testimony.
`
`51. Mr. Martino was shocked when he heard the allegations against Houseman in
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`1990.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Evaluation of Mr. Martino’s account of how he internally
`
`processed this information requires a credibility determination which is not permissible on a
`
`motion for summary judgment. As a result, defendants’ reliance on it supports denial of their
`
`motion. Mr. Martino testified that he was “amazed,” not shocked (Ex. B, p. 36).
`
`52.
`
`Before Mr. Martino received the telephone call in December 1990, Mr. Martino
`
`believed Houseman was a good teacher, and had no reason to believe Houseman posed a threat
`
`to students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino knew or should have known that Houseman posed
`
`a threat to students. See Response No. 45. The testimony defendants rely upon (Hayes Aff., Ex.
`
`E, pp. 28, 37-38) consists entirely of leading questions that would not be permitted of a non-
`
`adverse witness at trial.
`
`53. Mr. Martino never saw Houseman touch a student inappropriately or make any
`
`type of sexual comment to a student.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino confirmed to law enforcement at the time of
`
`Houseman’s arrest that he had observed Houseman hugging students, but he considered this
`
`physical interaction between a teacher and fifth grade students appropriate (Hayes Aff., Ex. L., p.
`
`7). The affidavit of Patrick Whipple further establishes that Mr. Martino’s interactions with
`
`Houseman during all relevant times was infrequent, raising credibility issues concerning what
`
`Mr. Martino failed to see, and/or knew or should have known during his tenure as principal (Ex.
`
`L, p. 4).
`
`54.
`
`As the Elementary School Principal, Mr. Martino would been the individual to
`
`whom any concerns or complaints of inappropriate behavior with students was reported.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Reports were required to be made directly to law enforcement
`
`and/or child protective services. (Social Services Law § 415) However, while Mr. Martino was
`
`identified as an individual to whom such complaints “could” or “should” have been reported, the
`
`evidence supports that school employees either failed to report their observations and concerns to
`
`him or any other member of the administration or that the administration failed to act. See
`
`Response No. 45.
`
`55. Mr. Martino would have reported any allegations of inappropriate conduct to the
`
`superintendent.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino never states that he had a blanket policy of
`
`reporting allegations to his superintendent. Instead, in the cited testimony, Mr. Martino states in
`
`response to a leading question from defense counsel that the 1990 report of abuse was “the type
`
`of thing” he would report to the superintendent (Ex. B, pp. 56-57). He initially denied any recall
`
`of any other reports of sexual abuse during his tenure (Ex. B, p. 75) until directly questioned
`
`regarding Fred Montag (Ex. B, p. 84), who was also accused of inappropriate touching (Ex. B,
`
`pp. 85). He stated that he could not recall his role in investigating another incident of sexual
`
`abuse which was handled by the superintendent (Ex. B, pp. 87-88). Mr. Martino, in fact,
`
`testified that he never received any formal, written instruction on how to handle reports of
`
`inappropriate contact with students (Ex. B, p. 87).
`
`Moreover, contrary to Mr. Martino’s testimony as to no other incidents of sexual abuse
`
`by a teacher, another fifth-grade teacher, Mr. Hauser, was let go mid-year the same year that
`
`plaintiff was being abused by Houseman (Ex. E, pp. 69-70; Ex. D, pp. 74, 86-87; Ex. G, pp. 58-
`
`60). Because Mr. Martino denied any recall, he could offer no testimony regarding his
`
`involvement and whether he properly reported Hauser’s actions.
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`56.
`
`Prior to 1990, no parent, student, or teacher ever approached Mr. Martino with
`
`concerns about Houseman acting inappropriately with students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The testimony defendants rely upon (Hayes Aff., Ex. E, pp. 41-
`
`42) not only consists entirely of leading questions that would not be permitted of a non-adverse
`
`witness at trial but also is limited to parents and teachers. It does not include students.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Martino is documented in the presentencing report that he received complaints of
`
`Houseman being too strict with students (Hayes Aff., Ex. L, p. 7), yet he denied any complaints
`
`at all at his deposition and there is no record of the acknowledged complaints in Houseman’s
`
`personnel file (Marek Aff., Ex. A).
`
`57.
`
`Prior to 1990, no parent, student, or teacher ever approached Mr. Martino with
`
`concerns about Houseman sexually abusing students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The testimony defendants rely upon (Hayes Aff., Ex. E, pp. 41-
`
`42, 45) consists entirely of leading questions that would not be permitted of a non-adverse
`
`witness at trial. As noted in response to No. 56, supra, Mr. Martino denied any complaints at all
`
`regarding Houseman and there are no such reports in Houseman’s file despite his clear
`
`acknowledgment in the presentencing report of complaints.
`
`58. Mr. Martino was only aware of one student who had been abused by Houseman
`
`prior to being contacted regarding the present lawsuit.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed that this was Mr. Martino’s testimony. Disputed as to the
`
`truthfulness of Mr. Martino’s statement. Your affirmant reviewed records from the Orleans
`
`County Clerk and Sheriff’s Department as subpoenaed to the Court for an in camera review.
`
`Those records contain a 4-page statement of companion plaintiff AB 524 Doe, taken by
`
`Investigator Dwight Hill during Houseman’s criminal investigation and trial. The statement
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`documents AB 524 Doe’s statement of abuse by Houseman. Notably, it does not appear
`
`defendants investigated further as to whether other students at the District were abused by
`
`Houseman, and regardless of the credibility issues surrounding this statement, Mr. Martino’s
`
`indifference is not a defense to his lack of knowledge, nor is the fact that based upon the
`
`evidence, he should have known.
`
`59.
`
`Prior to 1990, Mr. Martino never received a complaint about Houseman acting
`
`inappropriately with student.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. See Response to Nos. 56 and 58.
`
`60.
`
`In 1990 Mr. Martino told law enforcement that he was unaware of any “rumors of
`
`allegations of impropriety leveled toward Terry Houseman in the past.”
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The statement indicates that Mr. Martino denied any recall with
`
`respect to prior allegations, not that he was unaware of such allegations, which implies a recall
`
`that he had never heard any rumors (Hayes Aff., Ex. A, p. 7).
`
`61. Mr. Martino believes the District did everything it could have done to protect
`
`students from Houseman, because no one ever suspected Houseman would hurt a student.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Martino does not state this. When asked over objection
`
`whether he believed he personally (not “the District”) could have done more to protect the
`
`students, his response was, “You know, you never know, but I don’t think so,” (Ex. B, p. 41). In
`
`any case, Mr. Martino’s ambivalent opinion is not a “fact,” and he cannot stand in the place of
`
`the trier of fact on this issue.
`
`Donald Bow, Superintendent 1973-1981
`
`62.
`
`Donald Bow was superintendent of the District from 1973 through 1981.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`14 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`63.
`
`Prior to 1990, Mr. Bow had no reason to believe that Houseman was acting
`
`inappropriately with students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Mr. Bow left employment with the school in 1981 and he
`
`testified that even when at the school, he had no direct oversight of Houseman. Instead, the
`
`principal at that time had oversight, and he only saw Houseman at staff meetings (Ex. C, pp. 12,
`
`23-25).
`
`64. While Mr. Bow was superintendent, no student or teacher ever raised a complaint
`
`about Houseman’s conduct with students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed to the extent the testimony defendants rely upon (Hayes Aff., Ex.
`
`F, p. 12) consists entirely of leading questions that would not be permitted of a non-adverse
`
`witness at trial. See also Response No. 63.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Bow’s testimony revealed issues with conducting and documenting
`
`reports and investigations of inappropriate conduct by teachers, which precludes summary
`
`judgment on this issue. Mr. Bow stated that during his tenure, he did receive a complaint from a
`
`board member regarding a teacher “being too friendly” with the student. Mr. Bow testified that
`
`the only person he reported this to was the principal. The school district has no record of this
`
`conversation or Mr. Bow’s subsequent interaction with the teacher as it apparently occurred
`
`informally and Mr. Bow, the school’s superintendent and acting on defendants’ behalf,
`
`apparently felt no need to have it formally documented (Ex. C, p. 27).
`
`Mr. Bow further testified that because the teacher stated he was already planning on
`
`leaving the school for another position when Mr. Bow went to discuss this report with him, Mr.
`
`Bow never bothered to investigate exactly what contact occurred. Mr. Bow allowed the teacher
`
`to resign and move on to another position without any formal investigation being conducted (Ex.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`C, pp. 28-31). He never even bothered to find out the name of the student involved from the
`
`board member (Ex. C, p. 26).
`
`Given this lackadaisical approach by the administration to the documenting and
`
`investigating of complaints of inappropriate contact between teachers and students, and their
`
`admitted willingness to allow teachers to simply resign and move on to positions in other
`
`districts without investigating or properly documenting that a complaint was made, Mr. Bow’s
`
`credibility on the issue of whether he ever received any such complaints regarding Houseman
`
`should be weighed by the trier-of-fact, and his testimony does not support summary judgment on
`
`this issue.
`
`65. While Mr. Bow was superintendent, no one ever raised a concern about
`
`Houseman’s conduct at a board meeting.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed as set forth in response No. 64.
`
`66. Mr. Bow never witnessed Houseman acting inappropriately with students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed as set forth in response No. 64.
`
`67. Mr. Bow never received a complaint about a teacher sexually abusing a student.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. As set forth in response No. 64, Mr. Bow acknowledged
`
`receiving a report regarding a teacher being too friendly with a student but never bothered to
`
`determine the extent of the abuse or even the student’s name.
`
`68.
`
`Prior to 1990, Mr. Bow never had any concerns about Houseman abusing
`
`students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The testimony relied on does not cover the period until 1990
`
`(Hayes Aff., Ex. F, p.18), but only until 1981. This statement is otherwise merely a repetition of
`
`statement No. 63 and plaintiff disputes on the same grounds set forth in responses 63 and 64.
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`69. Mr. Bow’s own son was in Houseman’s class. Mr. Bow was happy that his son
`
`was in Houseman’s class because Houseman was a good teacher, and his son did well in fifth
`
`grade.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`Ruth Bane, Elementary School Teacher 1969-2002
`
`70.
`
`Ruth Bane taught fifth and sixth grade at the District from 1969 until her
`
`retirement in 2002.
`
`RESPONSE: Undisputed.
`
`71.
`
`The first time Ms. Bane heard any allegations of sexual abuse against Houseman
`
`was after Houseman’s arrest in connection with the 1990 criminal matter.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Ms. Bane’s observations of Houseman’s interactions with
`
`plaintiff are set forth at response No. 73-82.
`
`72. Ms. Bane was shocked in 1990 when she learned that Houseman had been
`
`accused of sexual abuse, because she had never even heard a rumor of Houseman acting
`
`inappropriately with students.
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Evaluation of Ms. Bane’s account of how she internally
`
`processed this information requires a credibility determination which is not permissible on a
`
`motion for summary judgment. As a result, defendants’ reliance on it supports denial of their
`
`motion. Also, the testimony defendants rely upon regarding rumors (Hayes Aff. Ex. G, pp. 12,
`
`78) consists entirely of leading questions that would not be permitted of a non-adverse witness at
`
`trial. See also, response No. 73-82.
`
`73-82. Statements 73-82 are answered with a single response as they all relate to
`
`plaintiff’s testimony that Ms. Bane walked into Houseman’s classroom during an incident of
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY CLERK 08/17/2023 11:34 AM
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135
`
`
`
`INDEX NO. 20-46602
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/17/2023
`
`sexual abuse of plaintiff that she observed, Ms. Bane’s denial of ever having observed any
`
`conduct by Houseman, and defense counsel’s efforts to pick apart plaintiff’s testimony despite it
`
`clearly precluding a finding of summary judgment. The individual statements being responded
`
`to are:
`
`acting
`never witnessed Houseman
`73. Ms. Bane
`inappropriately with a student, and she never observed any conduct
`that caused her to believe Houseman was abusing a student.
`(Hayes Aff., Ex. G, p. 13-14).
`
`Plaintiff testified that on one occasion while Houseman was
`74.
`abusing him, Ms. Bane walked into the classroom. (Hayes Aff.,
`Ex. D, p. 68).
`
`According to Plaintiff, during school hours one day, he was
`75.
`alone with Houseman in Houseman’s classroom. (Hayes Aff., Ex.
`D, pp. 68-69).
`
`Houseman’s desk was located to the right of the door,
`76.
`facing the rest of the classroom so that when someone was in the
`doorway, they could see the left side of Houseman’s desk. (Hayes
`Aff., Ex. D, pp. 69-71).
`
`Plaintiff was standing with his back to the door at the left
`77.
`side of Houseman’s desk, in between Houseman and the door.
`(Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 71).
`
`78. While Plaintiff was standing facing Houseman with his
`back to the door, Houseman placed Plaintiff’s hand inside
`Houseman’s pants. (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 69-71).
`
`79. When Ms. Bane walked into Houseman’s classroom,
`Plaintiff turned his entire body, pulling his hands out of
`Houseman’s pants and off Houseman’s lap. (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p.
`72).
`
`Plaintiff’s body was also blocking Ms. Bane’s view of
`80.
`Houseman’s genital region. (Hayes Aff., Ex. D, p. 72).
`
`81. Ms. Bane never witnessed Houseman touching or being
`touched inappropriately by Plaintiff or any other student. (Hayes
`Aff., Ex. G, p. 10).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`18 of 32
`
`

`

`
`FILED: ORLEANS COUNTY