throbber
FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF RENSSELAER
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`T.T.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`HOOSIC VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
`
`
`SUMMONS
`
`
`
`Index No.__________________
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`To the above-named Defendant(s)
`
`HOOSIC VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT – 2 Pleasant Avenue, Schaghticoke, NY 12154
`
`You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of
`
`your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance,
`on the Plaintiff’s attorney within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day
`of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally
`delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer,
`judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
`
`The venue and location for trial is Rensselaer County. The basis of venue is where the
`
`cause of action arose.
`
`Dated: New York, NY
` August 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HERMAN LAW
`
`
`By______________________
` Jeff Herman, Esq.
` c/o Herman Law
` Attorney for Plaintiff
` 434 W. 33rd Street
` Penthouse
` New York, NY 10001
` (212) 390-0100
`
`
`
`1 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF RENSSELAER
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`T.T.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`HOOSIC VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Index No.__________________
`
`
`Defendant.
`-----------------------------------------------------------------X
`TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, T.T., by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully shows to this Court and
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a revival action arising from child sexual abuse brought pursuant to the New
`
`York Child Victims Act, CPLR § 214-g. As a minor, the Plaintiff was sexually abused and
`
`assaulted as a public school student.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, T.T., is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. Plaintiff brings
`
`this Complaint using a pseudonym because of the sensitive nature of the allegations of child sexual
`
`abuse in the Complaint, which is a matter of the utmost intimacy. Plaintiff fears embarrassment
`
`and further psychological damage if Plaintiff’s identity as a victim of child sexual abuse were to
`
`become publicly known.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, HOOSIC VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter,
`
`“DISTRICT”), is a public school district with a principal place of business located at 2 Pleasant
`
`Avenue, Schaghticoke, New York 12154. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant
`
`2 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`DISTRICT owned, operated, controlled, managed, inspected and/or maintained HOOSIC
`
`VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL (hereinafter, “SCHOOL”).
`
`4.
`
`At all times relevant and material hereto, JACK SCERBO (hereinafter
`
`“PERPETRATOR”) was an employee and/or agent of the Defendants and worked at the
`
`SCHOOL.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Article VI of
`
`the New York Constitution.
`
`6.
`
`Personal jurisdiction lies over Defendants as they are present and domiciled in the
`
`State of New York and/or transacts business within the State of New York and/or regularly solicits
`
`business in the state of New York and/or otherwise falls within the jurisdiction of the Court
`
`pursuant to CPLR § 302.
`
`7.
`
`Venue of this action lies in Rensselaer County as a substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Rensselaer County and/or one or more of the
`
`Defendants resides in Rensselaer County.
`
`8.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit of all lower courts.
`
`DUTY
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendants and Plaintiff were in a
`
`special relationship of school-student, in which the Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable
`
`care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms on school grounds and during school-related
`
`activities.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants had a duty to act as a reasonably prudent parent would in the
`
`circumstances. In this regard Defendants owed a duty in loco parentis to the Defendants’ students,
`
`including Plaintiff.
`
`3 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`11.
`
`At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendants and PERPETRATOR
`
`were in a special relationship of employer-employee, in which the Defendants owed a duty to
`
`control the acts and conduct of PERPETRATOR to prevent foreseeable harm.
`
`12.
`
`The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to use reasonable care to protect the safety,
`
`care, well-being, and health of Plaintiff while under the care, custody or in the presence of the
`
`Defendants. The Defendants’ duties encompassed using reasonable care in the retention,
`
`supervision and hiring of PERPETRATOR and the duty to otherwise provide a safe environment
`
`for Plaintiff.
`
`13.
`
`At all material times, Defendants owned a duty to use reasonable care to protect the
`
`health, safety, care, and well-being of the minor Plaintiff while under the care, custody or in the
`
`presence of the Defendants. These duties encompassed the protection and supervision of Plaintiff,
`
`and otherwise providing a safe environment for Plaintiff while on school premises.
`
`14.
`
`The Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of teachers,
`
`administration, employees, and staff, including PERPETRATOR, in the prevention of sexual
`
`abuse and protection of the safety of students in their care.
`
`15.
`
`The Defendants had a duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in
`
`the exercise of reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of
`
`the students in their care.
`
`BACKGROUND AND SEXUAL ASSAULTS OF PLAINTIFF
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`At all times relevant and material hereto, Plaintiff was a student at the SCHOOL.
`
`At all times relevant and material hereto, PERPETRATOR was an employee, agent
`
`and/or independent contractor over eighteen (18) years of age, employed by the Defendants and
`
`assigned to the SCHOOL.
`
`4 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`18.
`
`In approximately 1982, when Plaintiff was about twelve (12) years old, he was
`
`regularly and repeatedly sexually assaulted by PERPETRATOR, his sixth grade science teacher
`
`at SCHOOL. The acts of sexual abuse and assault perpetrated against Plaintiff by PERPETRATOR
`
`took place at the school, in PERPETRATOR’s classroom and in the restroom approximately twice
`
`per week for the duration of the school year.
`
`19.
`
`The acts of sexual assault and abuse perpetrated by PERPETRATOR against
`
`Plaintiff included conduct which constitutes a sexual offense on a minor as defined in Article 130
`
`of the New York Penal Law or the use of a child in a sexual performance as defined in § 263.05
`
`of the New York Penal Law, including without limitation, conduct constituting rape (consisting of
`
`sexual intercourse) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.25 - 130.35); criminal sexual act (consisting of oral
`
`or anal sexual conduct) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.40 - 130.53), and/or sexual abuse (consisting of
`
`sexual contact) (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.55 - 130.77).
`
`NOTICE – FORESEEABILITY
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, PERPETRATOR was at all relevant times a serial
`
`sexual predator who sexually assaulted and abused Plaintiff and other students during his
`
`employment by the Defendant DISTRICT at the SCHOOL.
`
`21.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant DISTRICT knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
`
`care should have known, that PERPETRATOR had a propensity for the conduct which caused
`
`injury to Plaintiff, particularly that he had a propensity to engage in the sexual abuse of children.
`
`22.
`
`At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant DISTRICT that
`
`PERPETRATOR would commit acts of child sexual abuse or assault on a child.
`
`5 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`23.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant DISTRICT knew or should have known that
`
`PERPETRATOR was unfit, dangerous, and a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the minors
`
`entrusted to his counsel, care and/or protection.
`
`BREACH
`
`24.
`
`Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff, other students, and parents that students were
`
`at risk of sexual abuse by PERPETRATOR.
`
`25.
`
`Despite knowledge of PERPETRATOR’s serious threat to the health, safety and
`
`welfare of minors, Defendants provided PERPETRATOR with unsupervised and unfettered access
`
`to minors, including Plaintiff, needlessly endangering his health, safety, and welfare.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants breached their duties in providing PERPETRATOR the opportunity to
`
`commit foreseeable acts of child sexual abuse or assault.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants breached their duties by failing to use reasonable care to provide a safe
`
`environment for Plaintiff where Plaintiff would be free from the unwanted sexual advances and
`
`dangerous propensities of PERPETRATOR as an employee/agent of Defendants.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants breached their duties by failing to take corrective action or adequately
`
`investigate reports or allegations of sexual misconduct by PERPETRATOR.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants breached their duties in hiring PERPETRATOR when he posed a
`
`foreseeable risk of sexual abuse to children.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants breached
`
`their duties
`
`in retaining and failing
`
`to supervise
`
`PERPETRATOR when they knew or should have known that he posed a foreseeable risk of harm
`
`of sexual abuse to children.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants’ breaches included: (i) failing to protect Plaintiff from sexual assault
`
`and lewd and lascivious acts committed by its agent and employee; (ii) failing to establish policies
`
`6 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`and procedures that were adequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of students and protect
`
`them from sexual abuse; (iii) failing to implement and enforce policies and procedures that were
`
`adequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of students and protect them from sexual abuse;
`
`(iv) hiring, retaining and/or failing to supervise PERPETRATOR when it knew or should have
`
`known that he posed a substantial risk of harm to children; (v) failing to adequately monitor and
`
`supervise students on the premises of the SCHOOL; and (vi) failing to train teachers,
`
`administration, employees, and staff in the protection of students from sexual abuse on school
`
`grounds and by educators assigned to the SCHOOL.
`
`32.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants concealed their knowledge that PERPETRATOR
`
`was unsafe.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants breached their duties by failing to take corrective action or adequately
`
`investigate reports or allegations of sexual misconduct by PERPETRATOR.
`
`34.
`
`Given Defendants’ constructive and/or actual knowledge concerning the dangerous
`
`propensities of PERPETRATOR, the sexual assaults and abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff were
`
`reasonably foreseeable to Defendants.
`
`35.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of its duties, Plaintiff was
`
`sexually assaulted and abused by PERPETRATOR as a student at the SCHOOL.
`
`36.
`
`The limitation of liability set forth in CPLR Art. 16 is not applicable to the claim
`
`of personal injury alleged herein, by reason of one or more of the exemptions provided in CPLR
`
`§ 1602, including without limitation, that Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the safety
`
`Plaintiff, or knowingly or intentionally, in concert with its agents and employees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE
`(Against Defendant DISTRICT)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 above.
`
`Defendant DISTRICT was negligent.
`
`Defendant DISTRICT owed a duty of care to Plaintiff.
`
`Defendant DISTRICT breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff.
`
`Defendant DISTRICT had actual or constructive notice that Plaintiff was being
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`sexually abused by an employee and/or agent of DISTRICT and failed to protect Plaintiff or
`
`otherwise make the facility safe for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was sexually abused after Defendant
`
`DISTRICT knew or should have known that Plaintiff was being sexually abused.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant DISTRICT was negligent in the placement and supervision of Plaintiff
`
`while at the SCHOOL, and in the retention of PERPETRATOR as an employee therein.
`
`43.
`
`It was
`
`reasonably
`
`foreseeable
`
`to Defendant DISTRICT
`
`that allowing
`
`PERPETRATOR unfettered access to children may result in sexual abuse of the same children.
`
`44.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DISTRICT’s negligence, Plaintiff
`
`has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent psychological, emotional, and physical
`
`injuries, shame, humiliation, and the inability to lead a normal life.
`
`45.
`
` Defendant DISTRICT’s acts, conduct and omissions showed a reckless or willful
`
`disregard for the safety and well-being of Plaintiff and other children.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial in this action.
`
`46.
`
`WHEREFORE, the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower
`
`courts, and Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for compensatory
`
`8 of 9
`
`

`

`FILED: RENSSELAER COUNTY CLERK 08/09/2021 11:28 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. EF2021-269598
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/09/2021
`
`damages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, attorney fees, the costs and disbursements of this
`
`action, and such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary just and proper.
`
`Dated: New York, NY
` August 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`HERMAN LAW
`434 W. 33rd St., Penthouse
`New York, NY 10001
`Tel: (212) 390-0100
`
`By______________________
` Jeff Herman, Esq.
` jherman@hermanlaw.com
` Alexandra Slater, Esq.
` aslater@hermanlaw.com
`
`9 of 9
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket