OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`: COUNTY
`SUPREME
`COURT
`
`OF ORLEANS
`
`AB 524
`
`DOE,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`LYNDONVILLE
`LYNDONVILLE
`
`CENTRAL
`ELEMENTARY
`
`SCHOOL
`DISTRICT;
`SCHOOL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`NOTICE
`
`OF MOTION
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`21/47386
`
`NATURE
`
`OF ACTION:
`
`Child
`
`Victims
`
`Act.
`
`MOVING
`
`PARTY:
`
`DIRECTED
`
`TO:
`
`DATE
`
`AND TIME:
`
`PLACE:
`
`SUPPORTING
`
`PAPERS:
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`Elementary
`
`School
`
`(collectively
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`Lyndonville
`
`"District").
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`To
`
`be
`
`determined
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court.
`
`Orleans
`
`County
`
`Supreme
`
`Court.
`
`Affirmation
`
`of Shannon
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`(with
`
`Exhibits
`
`B. O'Neill,
`A through
`
`Esq.,
`G).
`
`dated
`
`January
`
`ANSWERING
`
`PAPERS:
`
`papers
`
`and
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`cross-motion,
`
`with
`
`Answering
`
`supporting
`seven
`least
`
`papers,
`
`days
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`RELIEF
`
`REQUESTED:
`
`An
`
`Order
`
`pursuant
`
`are
`
`any
`if any,
`prior
`to the
`CPLR
`
`Rule
`
`required
`
`to
`
`be
`
`served
`
`at
`
`return
`
`date
`
`of
`
`this
`
`motion,
`
`2214(b).
`
`to
`
`to
`
`CPLR
`
`3124
`
`§
`
`and
`
`provide
`
`full
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`3126:
`
`§
`complete
`
`discovery
`
`(20)
`evidence
`
`days;
`
`at
`
`in its
`
`entirety,
`relief
`
`compelling
`responses
`
`demands,
`
`and/or
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`together
`
`as
`
`this
`
`to
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`without
`
`objection,
`
`precluding
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`outstanding
`within
`
`twenty
`
`submitting
`Complaint
`
`dismissing
`with
`the
`costs,
`deems
`
`Court
`
`appropriate.
`
`disbursements
`
`and
`
`other
`
`

`

`GROUNDS
`REQUESTED:
`
`FOR RELIEF
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 3124,
`
`and
`
`§ 3126.
`
`ORAL
`
`ARGUMENT:
`
`Requested.
`
`DATED:
`
`January
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`WEBSTER
`
`SZANU
`s for Defendants
`
`LLP
`
`Attorne
`
`By:
`
`Michael
`Shannon
`
`P. McClaren
`B. O'Neill
`
`1400
`
`Buffalo,
`
`Building
`Liberty
`New York
`842-2800
`(716)
`mmcclaren@websterszanyi.com
`soneill@websterszanvi.com
`
`14202
`
`14221
`
`TO:
`
`STEVE
`BOYD,
`Leah
`Costanzo,
`North
`40
`Forest
`
`PC
`Esq.
`Road
`New York
`
`Williamsville,
`400-0000
`(716)
`Icostan7_o@steveboyd.com
`
`P.A.
`
`JEFF
`
`ANDERSON
`R. Anderson,
`Jeffrey
`52 Duane
`7th
`Street,
`New
`New York
`York,
`759-2551
`(646)
`jeff@andersonadvocates.com
`
`& ASSOCIATE,
`Esq.
`Floor
`10007
`
`ATTORNEYS
`
`FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`

`

`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`SUPREME
`COURT:
`
`COUNTYOF
`
`ORLEANS
`
`AB 524
`
`DOE,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`LYNDONVILLE
`LYNDONVILLE
`
`CENTRAL
`ELEMENTARY
`
`SCHOOL
`DISTRICT;
`SCHOOL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`21/47386
`
`AFFIRMATION
`
`OF SHANNON
`
`B. O'NElLL
`
`Shannon
`
`B. O'Neill
`
`affirms
`
`the
`
`following
`
`under
`
`penalty
`
`of perjury:
`
`1.
`
`I am an
`
`attorney,
`
`duly
`
`authorized
`
`to
`
`practice
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Courts
`
`of
`
`the
`
`State
`
`of New York
`
`and
`
`an
`
`associate
`
`with
`
`the
`
`law
`
`firm Webster
`
`Szanyi
`
`LLP,
`
`attorneys
`
`for
`
`defendants
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`and
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School
`
`(collectively
`
`the
`
`"District").
`
`I am fully
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`circumstances
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case.
`
`2.
`
`I submit
`
`this
`
`affirmation
`
`in support
`
`of
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`motion
`
`for:
`
`(1)
`
`an
`
`Order
`
`to the
`
`District's
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 3124
`
`directing
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to
`
`respond
`
`outstanding
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`within
`
`twenty
`
`(20)
`
`days
`
`and
`
`without
`
`objection;
`
`and
`
`(2)
`
`a Conditional
`
`Order
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§ 3126
`
`precluding
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`submitting
`
`evidence
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`dismissing
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§
`
`3126,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`Plaintiff
`
`fails
`
`to timely
`
`respond
`
`as
`
`directed.
`
`Procedural
`
`History
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`this
`
`action
`
`against
`
`the
`
`District
`
`by
`
`filing
`
`a
`
`Summons
`
`and
`
`Complaint
`
`with
`
`the
`
`Orleans
`
`County
`
`Clerk's
`
`Office
`
`on
`
`or
`
`about
`
`June
`
`11,
`
`2021.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Complaint
`
`is attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`

`

`August
`
`4, 2021.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The
`
`District
`
`served
`
`its
`
`answer
`
`to
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`on
`
`or
`
`about
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`Answer
`
`is attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`B.
`
`On
`
`or
`
`about
`
`September
`
`3,
`
`2021,
`
`the
`
`District
`
`served
`
`its
`
`First
`
`Set
`
`of
`
`Interrogatories
`
`to
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`Request
`
`for
`
`Production
`
`and
`
`Inspection
`
`of
`
`Documents
`
`and
`
`Things;
`
`Demand
`
`for
`
`Statements,
`
`Witnesses,
`
`Photographs,
`
`Reports
`
`and
`
`Insurance
`
`3017
`
`Coverage;
`
`CPLR
`
`Demand
`
`for
`
`Damages;
`
`Demand
`
`for
`
`Expert
`
`Witness
`
`Information;
`
`and
`
`Demand
`
`for Medicare/Medicaid
`
`Lien
`
`Information.
`
`Copies
`
`of
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`Demands
`
`are
`
`attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`C.
`
`6.
`
`To
`
`date,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`any
`
`response
`
`to
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`discovery
`
`demands.
`
`Good
`
`Faith
`
`Effort
`
`7.
`
`Due
`
`to Plaintiff's
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`respond,
`
`my
`
`office
`
`has
`
`sent
`
`multiple
`
`good
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`dispute.
`
`faith
`
`letters,
`
`as
`
`described
`
`below,
`
`in an
`
`attempt
`
`to
`
`resolve
`
`discovery
`
`8.
`
`On September
`
`30,
`
`2021,
`
`the
`
`District
`
`sent
`
`a letter
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`notifying
`
`him that
`
`his
`
`discovery
`
`responses
`
`are
`
`past
`
`due
`
`and
`
`requested
`
`he
`
`respond
`
`by October
`
`20,
`
`2021.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`letter
`
`is attached
`
`as
`
`Exhibit
`
`D.
`
`9.
`
`The
`
`District
`
`served
`
`another
`
`letter
`
`on October
`
`11,
`
`2021
`
`requesting
`
`a
`
`letter
`
`is attached
`
`as
`
`response
`
`to
`
`its
`
`discovery
`
`demands.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`the
`
`October
`
`11,
`
`2021
`
`Exhibit
`
`E.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`ignored
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`letters.
`
`The
`
`District
`
`served
`
`another
`
`letter
`
`on November
`
`18,
`
`2021
`
`requesting
`
`responses
`
`to
`
`its
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`and
`
`notifying
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`this
`
`was
`
`our
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`attempt
`
`to
`
`resolve
`
`the
`
`discovery
`
`issue.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`letter
`
`is attached
`
`as Exhibit
`
`F.
`
`2
`
`

`

`12.
`
`13.
`
`Again,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`did
`
`not
`
`respond.
`
`The
`
`District
`
`served
`
`yet
`
`another
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`letter
`
`on
`
`December
`
`8,
`
`2021.
`
`The
`
`District
`
`advised
`
`Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`this
`
`letter
`
`would
`
`be
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`final
`
`good
`
`faith
`
`attempt
`
`to
`
`obtain
`
`discovery
`
`responses,
`
`and
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`discovery
`
`responses
`
`December
`
`by
`
`13,
`
`2021
`
`would
`
`result
`
`in motion
`
`practice.
`
`A copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`correspondence
`
`is attached
`
`as
`
`Exhibit
`
`G.
`
`14.
`
`Prior
`
`to
`
`filing
`
`this
`
`motion,
`
`I attempted
`
`to
`
`speak
`
`to Plaintiff's
`
`counsel
`
`on
`
`January
`
`26,
`
`2022;
`
`however,
`
`no
`
`one
`
`at
`
`the
`
`counsel's
`
`office
`
`answered
`
`my
`
`telephone
`
`call
`
`and
`
`I was
`
`unable
`
`to
`
`leave
`
`a voice
`
`message
`
`because
`
`the mailbox
`
`is full.
`
`15.
`
`It has
`
`been
`
`months
`
`since
`
`the
`
`District
`
`served
`
`its
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`without
`
`receiving
`
`a response
`
`from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`The
`
`District's
`
`discovery
`
`demands
`
`are
`
`proper
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`all
`
`demands
`
`to
`
`therefore,
`
`waived
`
`objections
`
`to
`
`the
`
`discovery
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`respond.
`
`(See
`
`PF2
`
`Securities
`
`Evaluations,
`
`Inc.,
`
`v. Fillebeen,
`
`168
`
`A.D.3d
`
`617,
`
`618
`
`(1st
`
`Dept.
`
`2019)).
`
`16.
`
`Based
`
`upon
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`the
`
`District
`
`respectfully
`
`requests
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`grant
`
`the
`
`District's
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`compel
`
`in its
`
`entirety.
`
`17.
`
`As
`
`demonstrated
`
`above,
`
`a good
`
`faith
`
`effort
`
`has
`
`been
`
`made
`
`by
`
`the
`
`motion
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`repeated
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`the
`
`District
`
`with
`
`District
`
`to
`
`avoid
`
`practice,
`
`but
`
`the
`
`requested
`
`responses
`
`made
`
`this
`
`motion
`
`necessary.
`
`18.
`
`For
`
`these
`
`reasons,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`respectfully
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`order
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`the
`
`District
`
`with
`
`the
`
`requested
`
`discovery
`
`responses
`
`within
`
`twenty
`
`(20)
`
`days
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`Rule
`
`3124.
`
`It
`
`is
`
`also
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`enter
`
`an Order
`
`conditionally
`
`precluding
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`submitting
`
`any
`
`evidence
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`and
`
`dismissing
`
`3
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety,
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§
`
`3126,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`event
`
`that
`
`the
`
`responses
`
`are
`
`not
`
`served
`
`within
`
`the
`
`time
`
`frame
`
`ordered
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court.
`
`DATED:
`
`January
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`Shannon
`
`B. O'Neill
`
`4
`
`

`

`PRINTING
`
`SPECIFICATIONS
`
`STATEMENT
`
`I
`
`hereby
`
`certify
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`22 NYCRR
`
`202.8-b
`
`that
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`Affrimation
`
`was
`
`prepared
`
`on
`
`a computer
`
`using
`
`Microsoft
`
`Word
`
`.
`
`Type.
`
`A proportionally
`
`spaced
`
`typeface
`
`was
`
`used,
`
`as
`
`follows:
`
`Name
`Point
`Line
`
`typeface:
`
`of
`size:
`Spacing:
`
`Arial
`12
`Double
`
`Word
`
`Count.
`
`The
`
`total
`
`number
`
`of words
`
`in
`
`this
`
`brief,
`
`inclusive
`
`of
`
`point
`
`headings
`
`and
`
`footnotes
`
`and
`
`exclusive
`
`of
`
`pages
`
`containing
`
`the
`
`table
`
`of
`
`contents,
`
`table
`
`of
`
`citations,
`
`proof
`
`of
`
`service
`
`and
`
`this
`
`Statement
`
`is 726.
`
`Date:
`
`January
`
`28,
`
`2022
`
`Shannon
`
`B. O'Neill
`
`5
`
`

`

`A
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT A
`
`A
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`.
`
`0
`
`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`COUNTY
`SUPREME
`COURT:
`
`OF ORLEA,NS
`
`AB 524 DOB,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LYNDONVILLE
`DISTRICT;
`SCHOOL,
`
`CENTRAL
`LYNDONVILLE
`
`SCHOOL
`ELEMENTARY
`
`Defendants.
`
`Indeft No.
`
`c91
`
`-© 3
`
`f
`
`SUl¥JMONS
`
`TO THE ABOVE-NAMED
`
`DEFENDANTS:
`
`PLEASE
`
`TAIEE
`
`NOTICE
`
`THAT
`
`YOU ARE BEREBY
`
`SUMMONED
`
`to.answer
`
`the
`
`.
`
`Complaint,·a
`
`copy
`
`of which
`
`is hereby
`
`served
`
`upon
`
`you,
`
`and to serve
`
`a copy
`
`of your Answer
`
`to the
`
`Cóüip!âist
`
`upon
`
`the undersigned
`
`attorneys
`
`listed
`
`below
`
`within
`
`twenty
`
`(20)
`
`days
`
`alter
`
`the service
`
`is
`
`of
`
`this Summons,
`
`exdesive
`
`of
`
`the day
`
`of service
`
`(or within
`
`thirty
`
`(30)
`
`days
`
`after
`
`the service
`
`complete
`
`if
`
`this h=_mem
`
`is not personally
`
`delivered
`
`t.o you within
`
`the State
`
`of New York);
`
`and
`
`in the·case
`
`of your
`
`failure
`
`to appear
`
`or answer,
`
`judgmat
`
`by default
`
`will
`
`be taken
`
`against
`
`you
`
`for
`
`the relief
`
`demanded
`
`herein.
`
`Venue
`
`is proper
`
`pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`§504 inest
`
`andants
`
`are situated.in
`
`Orleans
`
`County.
`
`Dated:
`
`June 9, 2021
`
`PC
`STEVE
`BOYD,
`Forest Road
`40 North
`NY 14221
`Williamsville,
`400-0000
`Telephone:
`Q16)
`Icostanzo@steveboyd.com
`
`CLEANS
`2021
`
`CD C
`JLIN 11
`
`3 32
`
`

`

`ES, P.A.
`
`R. Anderson
`Jeffrey
`J.Michael
`Reck
`ANDERSON
`JEFF
`52 Duane
`Street,.7th
`New York, NY 10007
`(646)·759-2551
`Telephone:
`jeff@andersonadvoc
`44.com
`mreck@añdersonadvocates.com
`
`& ASSOCIAT
`Floor
`
`Counsel
`
`for PlaintW
`
`2
`
`

`

`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`SUPREME
`COUNTY
`COURT:
`
`OF ORLEANS
`
`AB 524 DOE,
`
`Plaintif
`
`F,
`
`v.
`
`LYNDONVILLE
`DISTÎUCT;
`SCHOOL,
`
`CENTRAL
`LYNDONVILLE
`
`SCHOOL
`ELEMENTARY
`
`Defendants.
`
`Index No. db C3%lf
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND
`
`FOR JURY TRIAL1
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`by and thicagh
`
`PlaintifFs
`
`attorneys,
`
`states
`
`and alleges
`
`as follows:
`
`PSEUDONVM
`
`l.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is·atithorized
`
`to file
`
`the instant
`
`action
`
`under
`
`a pseudcaym
`
`and defendants
`
`are barred
`
`from disclosiñg
`
`Peddmiards
`
`true identity
`
`to the general
`
`public
`
`pursuant
`
`to an Amended
`
`Order
`
`oftheHonorable
`
`Deborah
`
`A.
`
`M=as.
`
`J.S.C.
`
`dated August
`
`13,2018
`
`whichis
`
`sttsched
`
`hereto.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`resided
`
`in the State ofNew
`
`York.
`
`PARTIES
`
`At all
`
`times material
`
`to this Complaint,
`
`3.
`
`Whenever
`
`reference
`
`is made
`
`to any Defendant
`
`entity,
`
`such mferance
`
`incladss
`
`that
`
`entity,
`
`affiliates,
`
`predeccssors,
`
`and sucMssors.
`
`In addition,
`
`wheñêver
`
`reference
`
`is made
`
`to any act,
`
`deed, or
`
`tramaMion
`
`of any entity,
`
`the allegadon
`
`means
`
`that
`
`the entity
`
`engaged
`
`in the act, deed, or
`
`transaction
`
`by or
`
`through
`
`its officers,
`
`directors,
`
`agents,
`
`employees,
`
`or
`
`representatives
`
`while
`
`they
`
`were actively
`
`cñgaged
`
`in themanagement,
`
`directfon,
`
`control,
`
`or transaction
`
`of
`
`the entity's
`
`b'ena=
`
`or affairs.
`
`1Purmiant
`
`to §4 of the New York Child Victims Act, Plaintiff
`
`is entitled to á trial preference.
`
`3RLE
`2021
`
`5S CD CLERG
`JUN 11mf9:32
`
`

`

`.
`
`4.
`
`At all
`
`times material
`
`Defcadêñt
`
`Lynd6nville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`("Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.")
`
`was and
`
`continues
`
`to be a public-school
`
`district
`
`located
`
`in the County
`
`of Orleans
`
`and
`
`State of New York.
`
`5.
`
`At all
`
`times
`
`siatcrial,
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Blementary
`
`School was and continues
`
`to
`
`be a public
`
`school
`
`owned,
`
`controlled,
`
`supervised,
`
`operated
`
`and managed
`
`Darandaa+
`
`by
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`6.
`
`At
`
`all
`
`times
`
`material,
`
`Terry
`
`E. Houseman
`
`was
`
`an
`
`employee
`
`of Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`7.
`
`This Court
`
`has jurisdiation
`
`pursuant
`
`to C.P.L.R.
`
`§ 301 as Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`is a quasi-municipal
`
`corpar=*ion
`
`created
`
`and organized
`
`by state
`
`legislatures
`
`and charged
`
`with
`
`the
`
`of
`
`public
`
`schosis
`
`in
`
`the
`
`State
`
`Defendant
`
`admini=*ration
`
`of New York,
`
`including
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School,
`
`and because
`
`the unlawful
`
`conduct
`
`complained
`
`of herein
`
`occurred
`
`in New York.
`
`8,
`
`Venue
`
`is proper
`
`pu=jinit
`
`to C.P.L.R.
`
`§504
`
`in that Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`is
`
`situated
`
`in Orleans
`
`County.
`
`9.
`
`This
`
`smp!:lñt
`
`is brought
`
`under
`
`the Child
`
`Victims
`
`Act
`
`and, as such,
`
`the filing
`
`of a.
`
`Notice
`
`of Claim is not
`
`required.
`
`FACTS
`
`10.
`
`At all
`
`times material,
`
`Houseman
`
`was employed
`
`by Defcadaat
`
`Lyndeaville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and mmained
`
`under
`
`the direct
`
`supervision,
`
`employ,
`
`and control
`
`of Defendant
`
`Lyndañville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`II.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`placed
`
`Houseman
`
`in positions
`
`where
`
`he had access
`
`to and worked
`
`with
`
`children
`
`as an integral
`
`part..of
`
`his work.
`
`Specifically,
`
`Defeadant
`
`Lyñdõñville
`
`2
`
`

`

`C.S.D.
`
`placed
`
`and retained
`
`Housed.=
`
`atLyndenville
`
`Elementary
`
`School
`
`as an elom=t=y
`
`school
`
`teacher.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`At all
`
`times material,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was a student
`
`at Lyndamrille
`
`Elementary
`
`School.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`as a minor
`
`and vulnerable
`
`child,
`
`was dependent
`
`on Defendant
`
`LyndsaWle
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and Houseman.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndanville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and Houseman
`
`had casiedy
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`and.
`
`were
`
`entmsted
`
`with
`
`the safety
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`had responsibility
`
`for and authority
`
`over
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`14.
`
`Fróm alsproximately
`
`1982 to 1983, when Plaintiff
`
`was approximately
`
`10 to 11 years
`
`old, Houseman
`
`engaged.in
`
`unpermitted
`
`sexual
`
`contact
`
`with Plaintiff.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndañville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`knew or should
`
`have
`
`known
`
`that Houseman
`
`was a
`
`danger
`
`to children
`
`before
`
`Houseman
`
`sexually
`
`assaulted
`
`Plaintif
`
`£.
`
`16.
`
`Prior
`
`to the
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`of Plaintift
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`leamed
`
`or
`
`should
`
`have
`
`leamed
`
`that Houseman
`
`was not
`
`fit
`
`to work
`
`with
`
`children.
`
`Da'and=±
`
`Lyndonville
`
`became
`
`or should
`
`C.S.D.,
`
`by and through
`
`their
`
`agents,
`
`servants
`
`and/or
`
`ersplayees,
`
`aware,
`
`have
`
`become
`
`aware
`
`of Houseman's
`
`propensity
`
`tocommit
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`and of
`
`the risk
`
`to Plaintiff's
`
`safety.
`
`At
`
`the very
`
`least,
`
`De'
`
`=d:-*Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`knew or should
`
`have
`
`known
`
`that
`
`they
`
`did
`
`not havesufficient
`
`information
`
`about whether
`
`or not
`
`its employees,
`
`more
`
`specifically,
`
`Houseman,
`
`were fit
`
`to work with
`
`children.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`knew or sliould
`
`have
`
`known
`
`that
`
`there was a risk
`
`of
`
`the
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`of
`
`children
`
`attending
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School.
`
`At
`
`the
`
`very
`
`least,
`
`.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndanville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`knew
`
`or sliould
`
`have
`
`known
`
`.that
`
`they
`
`did
`
`not
`
`have
`
`sufficient
`
`infonnation
`
`about
`
`whether
`
`or not
`
`there was
`
`a risk
`
`of
`
`child
`
`sex
`
`abuse
`
`for
`
`children
`
`attcading
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elemeritary
`
`School.
`
`3
`
`

`

`18.
`
`Instead,
`
`Defcndants
`
`negligently
`
`deemed
`
`that
`
`Housemæ
`
`was
`
`fit
`
`to work
`
`with
`
`childrea
`
`and/or
`
`that any previous
`
`misconduct
`
`was fixed
`
`or cured
`
`and/or
`
`that Houcemm
`
`would
`
`not
`
`sexually
`
`assault
`
`chu&va
`
`and/or
`
`thatHouseman
`
`wouldnotinjurechildren.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyadcñville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`of
`
`reasonable
`
`care because
`
`they had superior
`
`luisviledge
`
`about
`
`the risk
`
`that Houseman
`
`posed
`
`to Plaintift
`
`the risk
`
`of abuse in
`
`general
`
`in its schacis
`
`and/or
`
`the risks
`
`that
`
`its fkiMes
`
`posed
`
`to minor
`
`F
`
`chil
`
`20.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndenville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed
`
`a duty
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`to protect
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from
`
`harm hecause
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.'s
`
`actions
`
`created
`
`a foreseeable
`
`risk
`
`of hann
`
`to
`
`PlaintifE
`
`As
`
`a vulnerable
`
`child
`
`attending
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`a
`
`foreseeable
`
`victim.
`
`As a vulñêrabic'child
`
`who Houscman
`
`had access
`
`to through
`
`his
`
`cmployment
`
`with Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was a foresceable
`
`victim.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`also
`
`breached
`
`its
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`maintainiñg
`
`and
`
`einploying
`
`Houseman
`
`in
`
`et position
`
`of
`
`power
`
`and
`
`authority
`
`through
`
`which
`
`Housemãñ
`
`had
`
`access
`
`to
`
`children,
`
`including
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`and
`
`power
`
`and
`
`contral
`
`over
`
`children,
`
`duty
`
`by
`
`actively
`
`including
`
`Plaintiff
`
`22.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`breached
`
`its
`
`duties
`
`to
`
`PlaintifE
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S,D.
`
`failed
`
`to use ordinary
`
`carein
`
`determining
`
`whetherits
`
`facilities
`
`were
`
`safe and/or
`
`information
`
`to represent
`
`its
`
`facilities
`
`as safe. Defendant
`
`detennining
`
`whether
`
`it had
`
`sufficient
`
`Lyadcaville
`
`C.S.D.'s
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`its duties
`
`include,
`
`but are not
`
`limited
`
`to:failure
`
`to protect
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from ainown
`
`danger,
`
`or
`
`rease6ly
`
`fore::ee=ble
`
`failure
`
`to have
`
`sufficient
`
`policies
`
`and procedures
`
`to prevent
`
`child
`
`sex abuse,
`
`failure
`
`to properly
`
`implement
`
`policies
`
`and procedures
`
`to prevent
`
`child
`
`sex abuse,
`
`failute
`
`to take raaannable
`
`measures
`
`to make
`
`sure that policies
`
`and procedures
`
`to prevent
`
`child
`
`sex abuse were working,
`
`failure
`
`to adequately
`
`inform
`
`fendlies
`
`and children
`
`of
`
`the risks
`
`of
`
`4
`
`

`

`child
`
`sex ablise,
`
`failure
`
`to investigate
`
`risks
`
`of child
`
`sex abuse,
`
`failure
`
`to have
`
`any outside
`
`agency
`
`test
`
`its safety
`
`procedures,
`
`failure
`
`to protect
`
`the children
`
`attending
`
`its programs
`
`from child
`
`sex
`
`abuse,
`
`failure
`
`to adhere
`
`to the applicable
`
`stardard
`
`of care for child
`
`safety,
`
`failure
`
`t'o investigate
`
`the
`
`amountand
`
`type
`
`ofinfonnation
`
`necessary
`
`to represent
`
`the school
`
`and its employees
`
`as safe,
`
`failure.
`
`to train
`
`its employees
`
`properly
`
`to identiff
`
`signs
`
`of child
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`by fellow
`
`employees,
`
`and
`
`failure
`
`to engage
`
`or
`
`timely
`
`engage
`
`certified
`
`mental
`
`health
`
`professionals.
`
`23.
`
`Defendantlyndañvine
`
`C.S.D.
`
`also hicachcd
`
`its duty
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`by failing
`
`to warn
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Plaintiff's
`
`family
`
`of
`
`the risk
`
`that Houseman
`
`posed.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndoñrille
`
`C.S.D.
`
`further
`
`failed
`
`to wam Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s
`
`family
`
`of Defsidaat
`
`Lyndeaville
`
`C.S.D.'s
`
`knowledge
`
`of
`
`the occurrence
`
`of child
`
`sexual
`
`abuse.
`
`24;
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and/or
`
`its other
`
`agents
`
`violated
`
`their
`
`legal
`
`duty
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to report
`
`known
`
`and/or
`
`suspected
`
`abuse of children
`
`by Houseman
`
`to law enforcement
`
`25.
`
`As
`
`a direct
`
`result
`
`of Defendants'
`
`negligence,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has
`
`suffered,
`
`and will
`
`continue
`
`to suffer,
`
`great pain
`
`of mind
`
`and body,
`
`severe
`
`and permanent
`
`emodanal
`
`distress,
`
`physical
`
`manifestations
`
`of
`
`emouenal
`
`distress,
`
`embamment,
`
`loss of
`
`self-esteem,
`
`humiliation
`
`and/or
`
`physical,
`
`personal
`
`and psychological
`
`injuries.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was prevented,
`
`and will
`
`wrsirme
`
`to be
`
`enjoyment
`
`prevented,
`
`from performing
`
`normal
`
`daily
`
`activities
`
`and obtaining
`
`the full
`
`of
`
`life; and/or
`
`has
`
`inemred
`
`and will
`
`continue
`
`to incur
`
`evpenaes
`
`for
`
`psychological
`
`treatment,
`
`therapy,
`
`and
`
`counseling,
`
`and,
`
`on information
`
`and belief
`
`has and/or
`
`will
`
`incur
`
`loss
`
`of
`
`income
`
`and/or
`
`loss
`
`of
`
`eaming
`
`capacity.
`
`AS AND FOR A FIRST
`EGIJGEN
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffincorporates
`
`all con•istat
`
`paragraphs
`
`ofthis
`
`Complét
`
`as if
`
`fully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`under
`
`this
`
`count
`
`5
`
`

`

`27.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`of
`
`reasonable
`
`care to protect
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`from injury.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`of
`
`reascre/le
`
`care because
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had a special
`
`relationship
`
`with PlaintifE
`
`29.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`also had a duty
`
`arising
`
`from its special
`
`relsuõñship
`
`withPlaintift
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`parents,
`
`and otherparents
`
`ofyoung,
`
`vulnerable
`
`children,
`
`to properly
`
`train
`
`.
`
`and supervise
`
`its employees.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had a duty
`
`to establish
`
`measures
`
`of
`
`protection
`
`not necessary
`
`for parsom who
`
`are older
`
`or better
`
`able to safeguard
`
`thcascIves.
`
`30.
`
`By
`
`representing
`
`Houseman
`
`as safe to work
`
`with
`
`children,
`
`and by undertaking
`
`the
`
`custody
`
`and
`
`supervision
`
`of
`
`the minor
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had
`
`a special
`
`reinesMy
`
`with
`
`the minor
`
`PlaintifE
`
`As a result
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`being
`
`a minor,
`
`and
`
`by Defendant
`
`Lyndañville
`
`C.S.D.'s
`
`of
`
`then
`
`vulnerable
`
`minor
`
`undertaking
`
`of
`
`the care
`
`and
`
`guidâñce
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`held
`
`a position
`
`of empowerment
`
`over Plaintiff.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndcaville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had an in loco
`
`arsñns
`
`reladonMp
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and owed Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`to protect
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from injury.
`
`32.
`
`By
`
`establishing,
`
`operating
`
`and/or
`
`admiñistrating
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Blementary
`
`School,
`
`accepting
`
`the minor
`
`Plaintiff
`
`as a participant
`
`in its programs,
`
`holding
`
`its facilities
`
`and programs
`
`out
`
`to be a safe envir===+for.Plaintiff,
`
`acceptiñg
`
`custody
`
`oftheminor
`
`Plaintiff
`
`in®loco parsñits,
`
`and by virtue
`
`of
`
`its special
`
`releuenship
`
`with
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Def.ndet
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`entered
`
`into
`
`an express
`
`and/or
`
`implied
`
`duty
`
`to properly
`
`supervise
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and
`
`provide
`
`a reasonably
`
`safe
`
`environment
`
`for children
`
`attending
`
`its schools.
`
`33.
`
`By establisMng
`
`and operating
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Élemen+±ry
`
`School
`
`and by accepting
`
`the
`
`êñroliment
`
`and
`
`participation
`
`of
`
`the minor
`
`Plaintiff
`
`in
`
`its
`
`edne+ional
`
`programs,
`
`Defendant
`
`6
`
`

`

`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed
`
`Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`to properly
`
`supervise
`
`Plaintiff
`
`to prevent
`
`harm from
`
`guerely
`
`foreseeable
`
`dangers.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndcñville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had the duty
`
`to exercise
`
`the same
`
`degree
`
`of care over minor
`
`stadeats
`
`under
`
`its control
`
`as a reassñãbly
`
`prudent
`
`parent
`
`would
`
`have
`
`exercised
`
`under
`
`similar
`
`circumstances.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`owed Plaintiff
`
`a duty
`
`to protect
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from harm
`
`because Defendaút
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D. was aware
`
`of Plaintiff
`
`s presence
`
`on its property
`
`and aware
`
`that Houseman
`
`posed
`
`a danger
`
`on Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.'
`
`s property.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`breached
`
`its duties
`
`to Plaintiff
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to use
`
`reasonable
`
`care. Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C;S.D.'s
`
`failures
`
`include,
`
`but are not
`
`limited
`
`to,
`
`failing
`
`to
`
`properly
`
`supervise
`
`Houseman,
`
`failing
`
`to properly
`
`supervise
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and failing
`
`to protect
`
`Plaintiff
`
`from a known
`
`danger.
`
`36.
`
`As
`
`a direct
`
`result
`
`and
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`sustained
`
`physical,
`
`cmaticaal,
`
`psychological
`
`hpuries,
`
`along with
`
`pain
`
`and.suffering.
`
`AS ANDJOR
`
`A SECOND
`NEGNGENT
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION:
`M1UNG
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffincorporatas
`
`all consistent
`
`paragraphs
`
`ofthis
`
`Complaiñtas
`
`if
`
`fully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`under
`
`this
`
`count.
`
`38.
`
`At all
`
`times material,
`
`Houseman
`
`was employed
`
`by Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and was
`
`under
`
`DefêñdEñt
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.'s
`
`direct
`
`supervision,
`
`eñipley
`
`and
`
`control
`
`when
`
`he/she
`
`c==Nad
`
`the vecñgfel
`
`acts alleged
`
`herein.
`
`Houseman
`
`engaged
`
`in the illegal
`
`canduct
`
`while
`
`acting
`
`in the course
`
`and
`
`scope
`
`of his
`
`eñiployment
`
`with
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and/or
`
`accomplished
`
`the sexual
`
`abuse
`
`by virtue
`
`of his/her
`
`job-created
`
`authority.
`
`3.9.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyñdouville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`negligently
`
`hired
`
`and/or
`
`negligently
`
`placed
`
`Houseman
`
`in.a pGsities
`
`to cause foreseeable
`
`harm which
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`not have
`
`been subject
`
`to
`
`7
`
`

`

`had Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`taken
`
`reasonable
`
`care
`
`in
`
`its
`
`pre-hiring
`
`investigation
`
`of
`
`Houseman.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`knew
`
`or
`
`should
`
`have
`
`known
`
`of Houseman's
`
`propersity
`
`for
`
`the type
`
`of behavior
`
`which
`
`resulted
`
`in Plaintiff's
`
`injuries.
`
`41.
`
`As
`
`a
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`sustained
`
`physical,
`
`emotional
`
`and
`
`psychological
`
`injuries,
`
`along with
`
`pain
`
`and suffering.
`
`AS AND FOR A TIHRD
`plEGLIGENT
`TRAINING
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION:
`AND SUPERVI$ION
`
`42.
`
`Plairdiff
`
`filcorporates
`
`all consistent
`
`pamgrapha
`
`of
`
`this Compléntas
`
`if
`
`fully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`under
`
`this
`
`count.
`
`43.
`
`At all
`
`times material,
`
`Houseman
`
`was employed
`
`by Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and was under
`
`each Defendant
`
`Lyndonville·C.S.D.'s
`
`direct
`
`supervision,
`
`employ,
`
`and control
`
`when
`
`he comniitted
`
`the wrongful
`
`acts alleged
`
`herein.
`
`Houseman
`
`engaged
`
`in the wrongful
`
`enduct
`
`while
`
`Defendant
`
`acting
`
`in the course
`
`and
`
`scope
`
`of his
`
`emplayment
`
`with
`
`Lyadcaville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`and/or
`
`accomplished
`
`the sexual
`
`abuse by virtue
`
`of his job-created
`
`authority.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had
`
`a duty,
`
`arising
`
`from
`
`its
`
`empicyment
`
`of
`
`Houseman,
`
`to ensure
`
`that Houseman
`
`did not
`
`sexually
`
`abuse
`
`children.
`
`45.
`
`Further
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyadcaville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`had a duty
`
`to train
`
`and educate
`
`employees
`
`and
`
`admi-is'rators
`
`and
`
`establish
`
`adequate
`
`and
`
`effective
`
`policies
`
`and
`
`procedures
`
`calcaisted
`
`to
`
`detect,
`
`prevent,
`
`and
`
`address
`
`inappropriate
`
`behavior
`
`and
`
`conduct
`
`between
`
`its
`
`empicyces
`
`and
`
`children.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`was
`
`negligent
`
`in
`
`the
`
`training
`
`supervision,
`
`and
`
`instruction
`
`of
`
`its employees.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`failed
`
`to timely
`
`and proparly
`
`cducate,
`
`8
`
`

`

`train,
`
`supsrvise,
`
`and/or monitor
`
`its agents
`
`or employees
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to policies
`
`and pr0cedaics
`
`that
`
`should
`
`be followed
`
`when
`
`sexual
`
`abuse of a child
`
`is suspected
`
`or obssived.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`was additiers)ly
`
`negligent
`
`in inhe
`
`to supervise,
`
`monitor,
`
`chaperone,
`
`and/or
`
`investigate
`
`Houseman
`
`and/or
`
`in fhiling
`
`to
`
`create,
`
`institute,
`
`and/or
`
`enforce
`
`rules,
`
`policies,
`
`precedures,
`
`and/or
`
`regulations
`
`to prevent
`
`Houseman's
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`of
`
`PlaintifE
`
`48.
`
`Defendara
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`further
`
`failed:
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`policies,
`
`procedores,
`
`training,
`
`manuals
`
`and
`
`other
`
`instructive
`
`materials
`
`and
`
`failed
`
`to publish
`
`such materials
`
`to all
`
`employees
`
`and administrators.
`
`49.
`
`As
`
`a direct
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`sustrdned
`
`physical,
`
`cmaticrsJ,
`
`and
`
`psychciagical
`
`injuries,
`
`along with
`
`pain
`
`and suffering.
`
`AS AND FOR 4 FOURTH
`NEGLIGENT
`
`CAUSE OR ACTION:
`RETENTION
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`incorporates
`
`all cones
`
`ant paragraphs
`
`of
`
`this Complaint
`
`as if
`
`fully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`under
`
`this
`
`count.
`
`51.
`
`Defendantlyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`became
`
`awar6
`
`or
`
`should
`
`have
`
`become
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`Houseman's
`
`propensity
`
`for child
`
`sexual
`
`abuse
`
`and failed
`
`to take any
`
`further
`
`action
`
`to remedy
`
`the
`
`problem
`
`and failed
`
`to investigate
`
`or
`
`remove
`
`Houssmsa
`
`from working
`
`with
`
`children.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`negligently
`
`and/or
`
`recklessly
`
`retained
`
`Hemenan
`
`with
`
`knowledge
`
`of Houseman's
`
`propensity
`
`for
`
`the type of behavior
`
`which
`
`resulted
`
`in Plaintif
`
`Ps
`
`injuries
`
`in this action.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants
`
`negligently
`
`and/or
`
`recklessly
`
`retained
`
`Houseman
`
`in a positiGE
`
`where
`
`he had access
`
`to cMWen
`
`and could
`
`foreseeably
`
`cause harm which
`
`Plaintiff
`
`would
`
`not have been
`
`subjected
`
`to had Defendant
`
`Lyndonville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`acted reasonably.
`
`9
`
`

`

`54.
`
`In failing
`
`to timely
`
`remove
`
`Houseman
`
`from working
`
`with
`
`children
`
`or tenninate
`
`the
`
`employment
`
`of Houseman,
`
`D#=d-+
`
`Lyndeaville
`
`C.S.D.
`
`negligently
`
`and/or
`
`recklessly
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`exercise
`
`the degree
`
`of care that a reasonably
`
`prudent
`
`parent
`
`would
`
`have
`
`excicised
`
`under
`
`similar
`
`circumstances,
`
`and created
`
`an increased
`
`risk
`
`of
`
`future
`
`harm.
`
`55.
`
`As
`
`a direct
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`sustained
`
`physical,
`
`amoden
`
`and
`
`psychological
`
`injuries,
`
`along with
`
`pain
`
`and suffering.
`
`AS AND FOR AlqFTH
`BRSCH OF STATUTORY
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION:
`'rO REPORT
`DUTY
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffincorporates
`
`all consistcat
`
`paragraphs
`
`ofthis
`
`Complaint
`
`as fffully
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`nder
`
`this
`
`count.
`
`. u
`
`57.
`
`Defbadants
`
`became
`
`aware
`
`or should
`
`have
`
`become
`
`aware
`
`of suspected
`
`incidsats
`
`child
`
`abuse
`
`and/or maltteatment
`
`by Hotssman,
`
`and failed
`
`to take
`
`any action
`
`to report,
`
`remedy
`
`of
`
`or
`
`otheresse
`
`investigate
`
`the child
`
`abuse
`
`and/or maltreatment
`
`and remove
`
`Houseman
`
`from working
`
`near or with
`
`access
`
`to children.
`
`58.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to New York
`
`Social
`
`Services
`
`Law
`
`§ 413, Defendants
`
`had
`
`a mandatory
`
`duty
`
`to report
`
`espected
`
`abuse
`
`or maltreatment
`
`of Plaintiff.
`
`59.
`
`Defendants
`
`and/or
`
`its agents
`
`viciated
`
`this statutory
`
`duty
`
`by failing
`
`to reportinown
`
`W
`
`and/or
`
`suspect6d
`
`abuse
`
`of childica,
`
`includiüg
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`by Ciccarelli
`
`to Iaw enforcement.
`
`60.
`
`As
`
`a direct
`
`result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`faragaing,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`was
`
`prevented
`
`from receiving
`
`the
`
`benefit
`
`of a thorough
`
`investigadon
`
`and
`
`prompt
`
`medical
`
`attention,
`
`and
`
`has
`
`sustained,
`
`and will
`
`ecatiaüê
`
`to sustain
`
`physical,
`
`emotional
`
`and psychological
`
`injuries,
`
`along with
`
`pain
`
`and suffering.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s damages
`
`are the direct
`
`result
`
`of Defendants
`
`failure
`
`to report
`
`and are fully
`
`recoverable
`
`pursuant
`
`to New York
`
`Social
`
`Services
`
`Law § 420.
`
`10
`
`

`

`PRAYER
`
`EOR RELIEF
`
`WHERBFORE,
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`foregoing
`
`causes
`
`of
`
`action,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`prays
`
`for
`
`judgmsat
`
`against
`
`Dc^='==+(s)
`
`in ·an amount
`
`that will
`
`fully
`
`and fairly
`
`campensate
`
`Plaintiff
`
`forPlaintiffs
`
`injuries
`
`and aamages,
`
`and for any other
`
`reliefthe
`
`Court
`
`deems
`
`appropriate.
`
`The amount
`
`ofdamages
`
`sought
`
`in
`
`this Complaint
`
`exceeds
`
`the jurisdictional
`
`limits
`
`of
`
`all
`
`lower
`
`courts
`
`which
`
`would
`
`otherwise
`
`have jurisdiction.
`
`DATBD:
`
`June 9, 2021
`
`.
`
`Esq.
`LeihCostanzo,
`PC
`STEVE
`BOYD,
`koad
`Forest
`40North
`NY 14221
`Williamsville,
`400-0000
`Telephone:
`(716)
`Icostanzo@steveboyd.com
`
`R. Anderson
`Jeffrey
`Reck
`J. Michael
`& ASSOCIAT
`ANDERSON
`JEFF
`7th Floor
`52 Duane
`Street,
`New York, NY 10007
`759-2551
`Telephone:
`(646)
`jeff@andersonadvocates.com
`mreck@andersonadvocates.com
`for
`Counsel
`
`Plaintaf
`
`ES, P.A.
`
`

`

`DO NOT DETACH
`
`Index
`
`Number
`
`FULL
`
`TITLE
`
`OF ACTION
`
`OR PROCEEDING
`
`Supreme
`
`Court,
`
`Orleans
`
`County
`
`AB 524 Doe
`
`vs.
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`Elementary
`
`School
`
`Defendants
`
`

`

`B
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT B
`
`P
`
`B
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`SUPREME
`COURT
`: COUNTY
`
`OF ORLEANS
`
`AB 524
`
`DOE,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`LYNDONVILLE
`LYNDONVILLE
`
`CENTRAL
`ELEMENTARY
`
`SCHOOL
`DISTRICT;
`SCHOOL.
`
`o
`
`Index
`
`No.:
`
`21/47386
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS'
`
`PLAINTlFF'S
`
`ANSWER
`COMPLAINT
`
`TO
`
`Defendants,
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`and
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School,
`
`by
`
`and
`
`through
`
`their
`
`attorneys,
`
`Webster
`
`Szanyi
`
`LLP,
`
`as
`
`and
`
`for
`
`its
`
`Answer
`
`to the
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`state
`
`as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`The
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`1 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`call
`
`for
`
`a legal
`
`conclusion
`
`that
`
`does
`
`not
`
`require
`
`an
`
`admission
`
`or denial,
`
`to the
`
`extent
`
`any
`
`response
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`form
`
`is required,
`
`deny
`
`a
`
`belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`therein
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`denies
`
`the
`
`same.
`
`2.
`
`Deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to form
`
`a belief
`
`as
`
`to
`
`the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`2 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`denies
`
`same.
`
`3.
`
`The
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`3 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`call
`
`for
`
`a legal
`
`conclusion
`
`that
`
`does
`
`not
`
`require
`
`an
`
`admission
`
`or denial,
`
`to the
`
`extent
`
`any
`
`response
`
`is required,
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`inforrñâtion
`
`sufficient
`
`to form
`
`a
`
`

`

`belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`therein
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`denies
`
`the
`
`same.
`
`4.
`
`Admit
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`4 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`insofar
`
`as
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`is a public-school
`
`district
`
`located
`
`in the
`
`County
`
`of Orleans
`
`and
`
`State
`
`of New York
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to
`
`form
`
`a belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`insofar
`
`are
`
`allegations
`
`as
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`are
`
`vague
`
`and
`
`ambiguous
`
`as
`
`to what
`
`times
`
`considered
`
`material.
`
`5.
`
`Admit
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`5 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`insofar
`
`as
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Elementary
`
`School
`
`is part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to form
`
`a belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`allegations
`
`insofar
`
`as
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`call
`
`for
`
`a
`
`vague
`
`legal
`
`conclusion
`
`and
`
`are
`
`and
`
`ambiguous
`
`as
`
`to what
`
`times
`
`are
`
`considered
`
`material.
`
`6.
`
`Admit
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`6 of Plaintiff's
`
`Complaint
`
`insofar
`
`as
`
`Terry
`
`E. Houseman
`
`was
`
`an
`
`employee
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Lyndonville
`
`Central
`
`School
`
`District
`
`for
`
`a period
`
`of
`
`time
`
`and
`
`otherwise
`
`deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to form
`
`a belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`allegations
`
`insofar
`
`as
`
`considered
`
`material.
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`are
`
`vague
`
`and
`
`ambiguous
`
`as
`
`to what
`
`times
`
`are
`
`7.
`
`The
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`in paragraph
`
`7 of Plaintiffs
`
`Complaint
`
`call
`
`for
`
`a legal
`
`conclusion
`
`that
`
`does
`
`not
`
`require
`
`an
`
`admission
`
`or denial,
`
`to the
`
`extent
`
`any
`
`response
`
`is required,
`
`the
`
`Defendants
`
`deny
`
`knowledge
`
`or
`
`information
`
`sufficient
`
`to form
`
`a
`
`belief
`
`as
`
`to the
`
`truth
`
`or
`
`falsity
`
`of
`
`the
`
`allegations
`
`contained
`
`therein
`
`and
`
`th