`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
`
`