Rose Doe v. The City of New York, Et. Al.

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/24/2023 12:00 AM INDEX NO.
818911/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/24/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF BRONX
------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
ROSE DOE,
Index No:
Plaintiff,
-against-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH

AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, PATRICIA FEENEY,
JAMES REILLY, TIFFANY ROBINSON-MCAULAY,
SHASHA BARRETO, FLOYD PHIPPS, ELYN RIVERA,
MONICA JOHNSON, PATRICIA JACQUEZ, JENNIFER
CRUZ, RASHIDA KING, ERYKA ROGERS, MIKERLEEN
BOURNES, ANTHONY SABANDO, JAYSON SANCHEZ,
DEVIN DERENONCOURT, ROBERT BALTHAZAR,
M.D., “SADE” DOE, and JOHN DOES #1-20,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff ROSE DOE, by her attorneys, LIAKAS LAW, P.C., complaining of the
defendants, respectfully alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights and common law tort action in which Plaintiff seeks redress
for the violation of her rights, privileges, and immunities, secured by the laws of the State and City
of New York, and the United States Constitution, including the including the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments puissant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
2. Plaintiff was only 21 years old when she was arrested by the CITY OF NEW YORK
and brought to Rikers Island on December 5, 2021.
3. By the time the Plaintiff left Rikers Island until on or about August 1, 2022, she
had been repeatedly sexually assaulted, including by a male inmate who was permitted to stay in
her Protective Custody dormitory in the women’s prison.
1 of 57
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/24/2023 12:00 AM INDEX NO. 818911/2023E
4. Upon information and belief, the male inmate in question, was a heterosexual male
[hereinafter ‘the perpetrator’] who was instructed to claim that he was transgender by DOC staff
so that he could stay in the female dorm where he would have access to female inmates.
5. Upon information and belief, the perpetrator was being investigated for at least five
prior the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) incidents before he was moved into Plaintiff’s dorm
in Rose M. Singer Center (RMSC) the female jail.
6. Upon information and belief, DOC records show that at the time the perpetrator
joined plaintiff’s housing unit, he was being investigated for his potential involvement in a
prostitution ring operating within Rikers Island that involved staff and inmates and that DOC was
aware he was likely moved to the female unit to facilitate his procurement of female inmates to
pimp out to male inmates and staff.
7. Defendants not only failed to remove the perpetrator from Plaintiff’s housing unit
despite repeated notice that he was sexually harassing the female inmates including Plaintiff, but
they also failed to intervene after his first sexual assault of Plaintiff on April 6, 2022.
8. Worse still, after Plaintiff’s first sexual assault by the perpetrator, Defendants
repeatedly left the housing unit unsupervised including after they were made aware of the first
sexual assault, which allowed the perpetrator the opportunity to sexually assault Plaintiff again.
9. The perpetrator was not removed from the housing unit until the other inmates
intervened and physically removed him from sexually assaulting Plaintiff and “packed him up”
meaning they threw his belongings out of the housing unit.
10. Defendants not only covered up Plaintiff’s sexual assaults by failing to provide her
with adequate medical and mental health services, failing collect, document, and review evidence,
they also subjected Plaintiff to extensive retaliation for reporting her sexual assaults including
2 of 57
removing her from protective custody, an act which put her life in danger and subjected her to
further civil rights violations.
11. Plaintiff was finally discharged from Rikers Island on or about, August 1, 2022, but
lives in fear that she will be returned at any time while her criminal case is pending as well as in
terror of being sentenced to further incarceration.
JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
12. Venue is proper in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County,
because the acts in question occurred within Rikers Island Correctional Facility which is
considered a part of Bronx County for jurisdictional purposes.
13. This action is brought pursuant to the New York State Adult Survivors Act (ASA),
a one-year “look back window” which permits claims that may have otherwise been time barred
or barred by the failure to timely file a Notice of Claim.
14. Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met.
15. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies to the extent that they apply to
the claims herein.
16. Pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) § 8-502, Plaintiff
will serve a copy of this Complaint upon the New York City Commission on Human Rights and
the New York City Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, thereby satisfying the
notice requirements of that section.
PARTIES
17. Plaintiff, ROSE DOE is a female resident of the City of New York.
18. ROSE DOE is a pseudonym used to protect Plaintiff’s identity due to the severe
and complex nature of her injuries, the extreme emotional distress she has suffered, her ongoing
3 of 57
need for mental health treatment and privacy as well as out of concern for her safety and well-
being.
19. Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee and/or inmate in the care, custody, and control of
Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK from on or about December 5, 2021, until on or about
August 1, 2022.
20. At all relevant times referred to herein, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee and/or
inmate in the care, custody, and control of Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
21. At all relevant times referred to herein, Plaintiff was only 21 years old.
22. The incidents at issue occurred during her first and only incarceration on Rikers
Island.
23. Plaintiff was at all relevant times, a Hispanic female, who stands only 4 feet and 11
inches tall.
24. Plaintiff also has diabetes and other medical conditions which require constant
treatment, care, and access to an appropriate diet and medication.
25. Plaintiff was repeatedly denied an appropriate diet and medication both of which
made her extremely weak, tired, and otherwise vulnerable to sexual assault.
26. Plaintiff also informed the staff at Rikers Island that she had a history of sexual
assault as a child and domestic violence as an adult both of which are further indicators that she
would be a target for sexual assault in the prison.
27. At all times relevant referred herein, Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
[hereinafter “CITY” or “THE CITY”] was a municipal corporation organized under the laws of
the State of New York.
4 of 57
28. At all times relevant herein, The New York City Department of Corrections
[hereinafter as “DOC”] was a mayoral agency of THE CITY.
29. At all times herein, Defendant, CITY, was responsible for providing medical and
behavioral health services to inmates and detainees in its correctional facilities.
30. At all times herein, Defendant, CITY, was responsible for providing shelter, food,
supervision, education, recreation, and other services and amenities to inmates and detainees in its
correctional facilities.
31. At all times herein, Defendant, CITY’s correctional facilities included the facilities
collectively known as “Riker’s Island” in the Bronx, New York.
32. RMSC is the facility on Rikers Island used by THE CITY to house female detainees
in the custody of DOC.
33. At all times herein, Defendant, CITY, was the employer of its co-Defendants,
including the individual Defendants.
34. Defendant CITY was at all times relevant to this complaint, responsible for the
policies, practices, and customs of the DOC and its agents, servants, employees, and contractors.
35. At all relevant times referred to herein, Defendant NEW YORK CITY HEALTH
AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION [hereinafter as ‘HHC’] was a public benefit corporation of
the state of New York.
36. At all relevant times referred to herein, Defendant HHC, pursuant to agreement
with THE CITY, HHC was responsible for the provision of medical and mental health services to
those in DOC custody, including Plaintiff.
5 of 57
37. At all relevant times referred to herein, Defendant HHC was responsible for
ensuring the completion of a forensic sexual assault examination of inmates in DOC custody who
report sexual assaults.
12. At all times herein, Defendant, PATRICIA FEENEY, was DOC Deputy
Commissioner of Quality Assurance and Integrity, employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK
through its DOC.
13. At all times herein, Defendant, PATRICIA FEENEY, was responsible for the
oversight of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) unit.
14. At all times herein, Defendant, PATRICIA FEENEY, was responsible for the
oversight of the Special Considerations Unit Committee (SCU) which permits or denies the
applications of incarcerated individuals who were born biological males seeking admittance to
RMSC based on their actual or alleged identity as transgender women.
15. At all times herein, Defendant, JAMES REILLY, was the Senior Correctional
Institutional Administrator for PREA, employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
16. At all times herein, Defendant, JAMES REILLY, was responsible for the oversight
of the DOC’s PREA unit including training staff with respect to PREA obligations.
17. At all times herein, Defendant TIFFANY ROBINSON-MCAULAY Deputy
Director of the Investigation Division for PREA, employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through
its DOC.
18. At all times herein, Defendant TIFFANY ROBINSON-MCAULAY was
responsible for overseeing all PREA investigations at DOC.
6 of 57
19. At all times herein, Defendant, SHASHA BARRETO was Supervising Investigator
of DOC’s Investigation Division’s PREA Unit, employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through
its DOC.
20. At all times herein, Defendant, SHASHA BARRETO was acting Deputy Director
of PREA Compliance.
21. At all times herein, Defendant, FLOYD PHIPPS, was Acting Warden of RMSC,
employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
22. At all times herein, Defendant, ELYN RIVERA, was Deputy Warden at RMSC,
employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
23. At all times herein, Defendant, ELYN RIVERA, was Deputy Warden for Programs
and Security at RMSC.
24. At all times herein, Defendant MONICA JOHNSON was employed as a
Corrections Captain at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
25. At all times herein, Defendant PATRICIA JACQUEZ was employed as a
26. At all times herein, Defendant PATRICIA JACQUEZ was part of the Security
Team.
27. At all times herein, Defendant JENNIFER CRUZ was employed as a Corrections
Captain at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
28. At all times herein, Defendant RASHIDA KING was employed as a Corrections
Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
29. At all times herein, Defendant RASHIDA KING was a member of the security
team.
7 of 57
30. At all times herein, Defendant ERYKA ROGERS was employed as a Corrections
Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
31. At all times herein, Defendant ERYKA ROGERS was a member of the security
team.
32. At all times herein, Defendant MIKERLEEN BOURNES was employed as a
33. At all times herein, Defendant ANTHONY SABANDO was employed as a
Corrections Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
34. At all times herein, Defendant JAYSON SANCHEZ was employed as a
Corrections Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.
35. At all times herein, Defendant DEVIN DERENONCOURT was employed by the
CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC as an Investigator in the Investigation Division’s PREA
unit.
36. At all times herein, Defendant ROBERT BALTHAZAR, M.D., was a physician
licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York, employed by HHC to provide medical care
to inmates on Rikers Island.
37. At all times herein, “SADE DOE” whose real name is unknown, is the individual
that the Perpetrator called on April 6, 2022, around 1:26 PM.
38. At all times herein, “SADE DOE” is believed to be an agent, servant, employee,
and/or contractor of HHC and/or the CITY with the ability or influence to move inmates in the
facility for the purposes of facilitating prostitution.
39. At all times herein, JOHN DOES #1-15, whose real names are unknown, were
employed by the CITY through its DOC and were responsible for the failures that allowed a man
8 of 57
to be housed in Plaintiff’s dorm and to remain there, the failure to supervise the dorm failures, and
the failures that permitted Plaintiff to be retaliated against for reporting her sexual assault and/or
those involved in prostitution at RMSC.
40. At all times herein, JOHN DOES #16-20, whose real names are unknown, were
employed and/or contacted by the CITY and/or HHC to provide medical and mental health
services and/or ensure that inmates who were sexually assaulted were given appropriate and timely
services.
41. At all times herein, the individually named Defendants [hereinafter as “Individual
Defendants”] including the JOHN DOES, acted under pretense and color of state law and within
the scope of their employment.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
42. On or about Monday April 4, 2022, Defendants CRUZ and KING arrived at
Plaintiff’s housing dorm RMSC 4 East, in the women’s prison with a male prisoner [hereinafter
identified as “the Perpetrator”].
43. The Perpetrator would later be sent back to the men’s dorm but only after he
violently sexually assaulted Plaintiff.
44. Plaintiff and the other female inmates began to immediately protest to Defendants
CRUZ and KING who brought the perpetrator to the unit.
45. Plaintiff had already been having issues with the other trans inmate on the dorm
identified here as R.L. who she knew before his top surgery.
46. R.L. had been sexually harassing Plaintiff and had been coercing a mentally ill
female inmate into performing sex acts.
9 of 57
47. Plaintiff had made repeated complaints about these issues, but Defendants did
nothing.
48. Now, to Plaintiff’s horror, Defendants were trying to send a cis male inmate into
the dorm.
49. Plaintiff and the other inmates complained protest to Defendants CRUZ and KING
that the perpetrator was clearly not trans noting that he lacked any feminine or non-binary traits,
dress, or appearance and had a full beard.
50. Defendant CRUZ told Plaintiff and the other female inmates in no uncertain terms
that she did not care what happened to them saying “I don’t give a fuck.”
51. Defendant CRUZ explained that the Perpetrator was there because he had already
been kicked out of every other dorm and had nowhere else to be housed.
52. Prior to being housed in Plaintiff’s unit, the perpetrator had been found guilty of
six infractions while in DOC custody.
53. Prior to being housed in Plaintiff’s unit, the perpetrator had been involved in at least
twenty-four incidents including one where he was arrested.
54. Prior to being housed in Plaintiff’s unit, the perpetrator was involved in at least five
PREA allegations, all of which remained open at the time of his transfer.
55. Prior to being housed in Plaintiff’s unit, it was widely known, including by DOC
staff, that the perpetrator was having a sexual relationship with his female girlfriend who was
housed in RMSC’s 4 East dorm with him.
56. Prior to being housed in RMSC, the perpetrator was housed in men’s dorms in
Riker’s Island.
10 of 57
57. The perpetrator had also been previously incarcerated in New York State prison
from 2015 to 2018 on assault charges, during which he was housed in men’s prisons.
58. Upon information and belief, the Perpetrator had been kicked out of the other dorms
in RMSC because he had committed sexual misconduct, sexual assault, and other unlawful acts
against the female inmates.
59. Plaintiff and the other inmates were upset not only because the Perpetrator was
clearly a heterosexual man, but because they were in a Protective Custody (PC) dorm.
60. Defendants have an unlawful policy and/or custom and practice that if an inmate
gets removed from every dorm regardless of the reason, they must be sent to the PC dorm.
61. Protective Custody dorms are reserved for inmates who require protection from
other inmates and/or staff for various reasons, including that they have a demonstrated
vulnerability to assaults, including sexual assaults, and/or that they are a desirable target.
62. DOC’s own directive, 5011R-A, identifies vulnerable inmates who may be in PC
dorms as any “inmate who is at high risk to become a victim of sexual abuse by another inmate
due to characteristics related to age; physical stature; criminal history; limited proficiency in
English; physical, developmental, or mental disabilities; gender identity; or past history of being
victimized.”
63. Moreover, because Plaintiff’s dorm was a PC dorm which housed few inmates that
generally got along, they did not have cells.
64. The dorm had a dayroom, a bathroom, and one room that consisted of about 50
beds, most of which were vacant.
65. There would be nowhere to escape the Perpetrator if he decided to attack.
11 of 57
66. This made Plaintiff very fearful especially because officers were rarely present on
their posts and often left the PC dorm to supervise themselves in violation of City, State, and
Federal law.
67. CRUZ and KING clearly knew that the female inmates in the dorm were at risk for
sexual assault by the Perpetrator, they simply did not care. They put the Perpetrator in the PC
dorm and left.
68. In addition to Plaintiff, and now the Perpetrator, the dorm held only 6 other inmates,
many of them disabled, petite women.
69. When the perpetrator entered the PC dorm, he was questioned by trans inmate R.L.
who asked the perpetrator how he identified.
70. The perpetrator informed R.L. that he was not transgender, or gay, but that he was
just there “to get pussy.”
71. This statement frightened the Plaintiff.
72. She had already been sexually harassed and sexually assaulted in the few months
that she was at RMSC.
73. Just a few months prior, in early January of 2022, Plaintiff had been sexually
assaulted by a female inmate.
74. She tried to report the sexual assault, and to get medical and mental health
assistance and testing for STDs but her complaints were not taken seriously.
75. Plaintiff was also repeatedly sexually harassed by a civilian employee at the
Commissary and by R.L. who had propositioned her for sex since she arrived at the PC dorm.
12 of 57
76. In March of 2022, Plaintiff spoke to DOC employees from the Investigation
Division group designated to investigate PREA Complaints [“PREA ID”] about the January sexual
assault and inappropriate touching by the Commissary staff member.
77. PREA ID failed to look into the Commissary staff member.
78. PREA ID failed to obtain the video from the correct date and time for the January
sexual assault.
79. PREA ID picked a narrow timeframe of surveillance video and then claimed that
the January sexual assault had not happened because they did not see it on the video.
80. Recently on or about March 8, 2022, after she had just arrived to the PC dorm, a
Corrections Officer from the security team, Defendant ROGERS recorded Plaintiff while she was
naked and showering.
81. After finally being moved to Protective Custody, on March 8, 2023, Plaintiff made
a grievance that Defendant ROGERS of the security team had entered her housing area and was
recording her while asking her harassing question.
82. The plaintiff was in the shower and was naked when Defendant ROGERS was
recording her.
83. Plaintiff repeatedly asked RODGERS to stop but RODGERS kept opening the stall
door of the shower and had her body worn camera activated.
84. Plaintiff told the other inmates and one of them said that RODGERS had done it to
her as well.
85. Plaintiff filed a grievance which was assigned to Defendant CRUZ to investigate.
86. CRUZ failed to investigate this complaint for over 30 days.
13 of 57
87. Defendants never alerted PREA to this complaint despite the fact that Defendant
ROGERS had recorded an inmate who was nude without permission or consent.
88. Defendants never located the recording, and it is unclear how many times it has
been distributed or dispersed.
89. The investigation consisted of obtaining a statement allegedly from ROGERS
which denied any inappropriate behavior or wrongdoing ever, despite ROGERS extensive,
substantiated disciplinary history and was signed with the wrong shield number.
90. Despite these seemingly impossible discrepancies, Defendants CRUZ and PHIPPS
closed the complaint into Defendant ROGERS on April 8, 2022, alleging that no further action
was necessary, without reporting the incident to PREA or attempting to determine the location of
the subject video.
91. Nor did any of the Defendants tasked with investigating PREA complaints review
this complaint or investigate the fact that ROGERS is on the Security Team which is the unit that
was identified as involved in the prostitution ring during the Perpetrator’s calls.
92. Defendants’ continuing failure to conduct timely and appropriate investigations,
including into sexual assault, has been noted repeatedly by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District, the Nunez monitor and the Moss Group Report’s 2016 report as discussed below at length.
93. This is a pattern that would repeat itself again in April of 2023 with respect to the
Perpetrator.
94. Upon information and belief, on or about April 4, 2023, as later recounted to PREA
ID investigators, R.L. said they had witnessed someone in a DOC jacket telling the perpetrator to
sign a paper saying he was transgender.
14 of 57
95. Investigators from PREA ID asked R.L. if the person he saw was “Ms. C” which
upon information and belief, referred to their belief that Defendant CRUZ was the individual R.L.
saw.
96. Upon information and belief Defendant CRUZ was the person that brought the
Perpetrator into the housing unit.
97. The investigation notes that R.L. denied knowing who he saw – in DOC parlance,
R.L. was “holding it down.”
98. On or about September 23, 2021, the Nunez monitor remarked: “correction officers
often do not accurately report incidents, and warn inmates to “hold it down” or otherwise pressure
them not to report use of force incidents.”
99. The 2014 CRIPA Report noted that the widespread use of the phrase “hold it down’
[-] code for, ‘don’t report what happened.’
100. The 2014 CRIPA Report noted that “Inmates who refuse to ‘hold it down’ risk
retaliation from officers in the form of additional physical violence and disciplinary sanctions.”
101. Plaintiff’s refusal to “hold it down” and her continued exercise of her Constitutional
rights to seek redress and speak about misconduct made her a target for retaliation from
Corrections Officers.
102. Within hours of his arrival, the Perpetrator also began openly telling everyone in
the housing unit that he was straight and not trans and was there to have sex with women.
103. He told them he had a girlfriend in 4 East and everyone knew they had sex but did
nothing about it.
104. This made Plaintiff fear for her safety.
15 of 57
105. On April 4, 2022, the same day the Perpetrator arrived, Plaintiff filled out a
handwritten statement and gave it to Defendant SABANDO.
106. The April 4, 2022, statement filled out by Plaintiff identified her name, date of birth,
book and case number, age and housing unit and went on to ay “I feel uncomfortable with this
individual inmate [Perpetrator].” She went on to note that a trans inmate R.L. had also sexually
harassed her, adding that male inmates “need to go back to the MEN Facility!!!!”
107. Plaintiff handed this written complaint to Defendant SABANDO.
108. Defendant SABANDO is assigned as security for RIVERA and PHIPPS.
109. Plaintiff’s April 4, 2022, complaint should have triggered a PREA investigation.
110. Plaintiff’s April 4, 2022, complaint should have resulted in the removal of the other
trans inmates from the housing unit.
111. Plaintiff believed that the report she gave to Defendant SABANDO would be
forwarded to the appropriate investigators and that The Perpetrator would be moved. She was
wrong.
112. Upon information and belief, Defendant SABANDO failed to give the complaint
to anyone for days, until after Plaintiff had already been repeatedly sexually assaulted by the
Perpetrator.
113. Upon information and belief, the practice of not reporting and/or under-reporting
sexual assaults and inmate complaints and grievances is a longstanding practice at Rikers Island.
114. Moreover, Plaintiff was later told by Defendant KING that she has direct access to
inmate complaints and grievances throws them in the garbage.
115. Interestingly, when SABANDO finally sent Plaintiff’s April 4, 2022, grievance to
PREA ID, KING was the only officer CCed on the email.
16 of 57
116. The Perpetrator persistently sexually harassed Plaintiff and some of the other
female inmates saying inappropriate things about their bodies and propositioning them for sex.
117. The Perpetrator was hyper focused on Plaintiff and told other inmates that he
thought she was “a little freak” and openly discussed sex acts he wanted to perform on Plaintiff.
118. Defendants knew this was happening and did nothing to intervene.
119. On or about April 6, 2022, around 1:26 PM the Perpetrator made a phone call to
someone named “Sade” or “Shaday” who is, upon information and belief, a DOC employee with
the ability to move inmates.
120. The recipient of this call is sued here as “SADE DOE.”
121. The Perpetrator left a message informing SADE DOE that he was in a new housing
unit and was “back in the desert again, I need some pussy, like I got no freaks right now. Send me
some freaks, send me some freaks.”
122. The Perpetrator then called someone else and spoke about several topics that should
have raised serious concerns given that his calls were or should have been monitored:
a. The Perpetrator complained about what he had to do to get into the women’s prison
and discussed performing and/or supervising sex work within the prison.
b. The Perpetrator discussed either an officer or an inmate he was sleeping with having
sex with officers on the security team.
c. The Perpetrator also repeatedly said that he did not have sex with men and refused
to do so and to “maneuver” to get into the women’s prison.
d. The Perpetrator said “I thought it would be easier in the men’s jail to work
with the nurses and the female CO’s and shit like that, but clearly it is easier
over here.”
e. The Perpetrator further discussed having sex in the RMSC clinic and/or sex work
going on in the clinic of RMSC.
f. The Perpetrator discussed an inmate sex work client who the Captains prevented
from going to the clinic for a date that the Perpetrator had set up for him because
g. The Perpetrator asked the recipient of the second call to call SADE DOE if she was
not on a “date” which is a term used for sex work and ask SADE DOE her to bring
him some “workers” meaning inmates who will perform sex work.
17 of 57
123. Around 4:15 PM on April 6, 2022, the only officer assigned to the housing unit was
told by a JOHN DOE Defendant in Central Control that he was to leave the post unattended to
assist with dispensing medication to the housing units.
124. On or about April 6, 2022, while Plaintiff was in the bathroom, using the toilet,
when Perpetrator entered a nearby stall.
125. Like nearly all inmate bathrooms in Rikers Island, the ceiling has mirrors so that
inmates can see if anyone is hiding inside the stall.
126. The Perpetrator used the ceiling mirrors to stare at Plaintiff while he masturbated.
127. Plaintiff could see The Perpetrator staring at her and masturbating.
128. The Perpetrator also began asking her personal questions while doing this.
129. Plaintiff had planned to take a shower but was now afraid of what would happen if
she got undressed.
130. As she could not use the bathroom or shower without fear of being sexually
assaulted, Plaintiff left the stall and went to the sink where she tried to ignore the perpetrator.
131. The Perpetrator exited the stall with his erect penis exposed and groped Plaintiff’s
buttocks while exclaiming: “you got a fat ass.”
132. Plaintiff fled the bathroom and told the Corrections Officer in the bubble.
133. The Corrections Officer did nothing except yell at The Perpetrator to leave the
bathroom so that Plaintiff could take a shower.
134. The Corrections Officer’s name is unknown, and she is named here as a JOHN
DOE Defendant.
135. Plaintiff made a second written complaint detailing what happened.
18 of 57
136. The Captain who took the report did not sign the bottom of the form in violation of
DOC policy and is a JOHN DOE but may also be Defendant JOHNSON.
137. The housing unit logbook, although cutoff, contains an entry from a JOHN DOE
Defendant dated April 6, 2022, at 6:00 PM which states that Plaintiff “alleged that inmate
[Perpetrator] made sexual advances towards her in the bathroom as she was brushing her hair. She
further alleges to be uncomfortable remaining in the unit. Area supervisor was notified. Inmate
statement was obtained…” The remainder of the entry is missing.
138. Despite having received this information Defendants’ PREA ID investigators and
supervisors later failed to obtain obtained the complete surveillance video for April 6, 2022, and
only watched a small window between 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
139. On or about 8:41 PM, on April 6, 2022, Defendant PHIPPS sent the following email
to Defendants FEENEY, REILLY, BARRETO, and RIVERA:
“Please refer to the attached inmate statement as it pertains to inmate [ROSE DOE]
in 5 South B. Written reports are being obtained from the officers assigned to the
post and will be forwarded once received.
I feel that individual [Perpetrator] is not a suitable fit for RMSC. If PREA ID
is able to listen to phone calls inmate [ROSE DOE] was overheard complaining
about the events while utilizing the phone at approximately 2012 hours.
Inmate [ROSE DOE] has alleged that inmate [Perpetrator] made sexual
advancements towards her in the bathroom along with making inappropriate
comments when she is in his vicinity. Other incarcerated individuals in the unit
alleged that inmate [Perpetrator] had made comments of being sexually
attracted to inmate [ROSE DOE].
Please have members of the PREA Unit visit 5 South B tomorrow morning.
Individual [ROSE DOE] does not want to remain in the unit due to feeling
unsafe in the presence of inmate [Perpetrator].”
140. Upon information and belief, Defendants FEENEY, REILLY, and BARRETO
ignored the email and failed to respond.
19 of 57
141. Defendant RIVERA did nothing until late the next morning, when Plaintiff had
already been sexually assaulted by the Perpetrator again.
142. The Plaintiff was made to stay on the unit that night with the Perpetrator who had
already sexually assaulted her and subjected her to near constant sexual harassment.
143. The Plaintiff tried to stay awake as long as possible because she was scared of what
the Perpetrator would do to her.
144. The Plaintiff was also scared because, despite everything that had already
happened, Defendants had left the unit without any officer.
145. Defendant BOURNES made an entry in the logbook sometime just after midnight
on April 7, 2022, which indicated that no officer was on post.
146. Instead of ensuring that an officer was assigned to the housing unit given the prior
entries that indicated an imminent sexual assault, Defendant BOURNES made an entry in the
logbook that she merely directed an officer from another housing unit to “float” on both units.
147. A JOHN DOE officer made several entries indicating they were completing
“floating” tours of the unit.
148. At some point during the early morning or night, Defendant SANCHEZ was once
again assigned to the housing unit but failed to remain on post.
149. While Plaintiff was sleeping in her bed, the Perpetrator, took the opportunity
sexually assault Plaintiff again.
150. The Perpetrator went to Plaintiff’s bed pull down her pants while she was sleeping
and begin to rape her vaginally strangling her while doing so.
151. Plaintiff takes medication that makes her drowsy, woke up to the sexual assault
while she was being strangled.
20 of 57
152. The other inmates in the housing unit awoke and those that were able to begin
physically assaulting the Perpetrator.
153. The plaintiff ran to the bubble where she found the officer sleeping.
154. She began banging on the plexiglass bubble and the officer let her into the bridge.
155. Once Plaintiff was out of the housing unit, she refused to go back into the housing
unit until the Perpetrator was removed.
156. The other women in the housing unit, did what Defendants repeatedly failed to do
– they removed the Perpetrator from the housing unit by physically removing him from Plaintiff
and “packing him up.”
157. Packing up is a practice of throwing an unwanted inmate’s belongings by entrance
to the housing unit to evict them.
158. Upon information and belief, around 9:18 AM Defendant JOHNSON was
summoned to the housing unit because of the incident.
159. Defendants RIVERA and KING as well as other Defendants told Plaintiff that the
Perpetrator was not leaving the housing unit.
160. Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to seek medical attention for almost an entire
day.
161. Defendants failed to preserve evidence and allowed evidence to be destroyed.
162. Around 9:45 am Defendant SANCHEZ made an unusual entry in the logbook
indicating that at some point prior, he had found the lights off in the housing unit and he instructed
the Perpetrator to turn the lights back on.
163. Defendant SANCHEZ continued that he was “unaware that said inmate made
advances on to inmates in the housing area.”
21 of 57
164. Around 9:45 AM two inmates were taken to the clinic but Plaintiff was not
permitted to receive any medical or mental health treatment.
165. Around 10:03 AM Defendant RIVERA forwarded the prior evening’s email to
members of the PREA ID team.
166. Around 10:47 AM the logbook notes that the Perpetrator was transferred back to
his original housing unit 4 East without noting why.
167. Plaintiff was interviewed twice by two different sets of investigators from PREA
ID.
168. Plaintiff was interviewed briefly around 11:30 AM by PREA ID while on the bridge
of the housing unit.
169. Plaintiff refused to reenter the housing unit because RIVERA, CRUZ, KING and
others refused to remove the Perpetrator from the unit.
170. Instead, they took Plaintiff to the school where she waited for hours.
171. The plaintiff was later interviewed by investigators at the school, including,
DERENONCOURT around 5:40 P.M.
172. She was then taken to intake and put in a cell alone before being brought to the
clinic for medical attention more later that evening, hours after her sexual assault.
173. Defendant BALTHAZAR saw Plaintiff in the clinic.
174. He failed to note that she had been raped but relied on the officer’s summary of her
prior statement that she had been groped earlier the prior evening.
175. He failed to ensure she was sent to the hospital for a rape kit or given any medical
or mental health treatment.
22 of 57
176. At 7:32 PM DERENONCOURT’s partner noted in an email that Plaintiff had been
sexually assaulted once on April 6, 2022, at approximately 9:00 PM and a second time the morning
of April 7, 2022.
177. Despite receiving this email, DERENONCOURT failed to obtain the correct video
of the incidents and failed to address the second incident entirely.
178. DERENONCOURT reviewed the wrong videos and then claimed that Plaintiff was
not sexually assaulted based on his erroneous review.
179. Defendants involved in the PREA ID unit including ROBINSON-MCAULAY
failed to address the discrepancies in the investigation and affirmed the decision that the complaint
was unsubstantiated months later.
180. Instead of removing the male rapist from the female protective custody housing
unit, Defendants also removed Plaintiff from protective custody and sent her to a general
population housing unit as a punishment for reporting her sexual assaults.
181. Plaintiff filed grievance about being retaliated against for reporting sexual assault,
but it was not no handled by PREA ID despite the fact that PREA prohibits retaliation in this
context.
182. Two months after the grievance, KING claimed Plaintiff refused to make a
statement and PHIPPS and RIVERA summarily closed the grievance without any investigation.
183. During the nearly two-month period from early April 2022 to early June 2022,
when she was re-housed in the PC dorm, Plaintiff was also repeatedly assaulted, infracted, denied
food, showers, medical attention, mental health care, and was on constant guard of an imminent
rape and/or assault.
23 of 57
184. Plaintiff’s rapist had been quietly moved back to a men’s facility following April
8, 2022, and suffered no consequences for his actions.
RELEVANT LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
185. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA Public Law 108-79) established
federal mandates to identify and prevent prison rape in correctional facilities within the
jurisdictions of federal, state, local, and native territories across the United States and was signed
into law on September 4, 2003.
186. The United States Department of Justice adopted the National Standards to Prevent,
Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape (the PREA Standards) effective August 20, 2012.
187. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice [hereinafter as “2013 DOJ Report”]
released a report on sexual victimization in prisons and jails where almost 6% of all inmates at
RMSC said they had been sexually assaulted by staff between 2011 and 2012 compared to a
national average of 1.9%.1
188. The 2013 DOJ Report found that RMSC had the sixth highest rate of inmate-on-
inmate sexual assault of any jail in the country.2
189. The 2013 DOJ Report found that RMSC had the highest rates of any jail in the
country of inmates reporting that staff had coerced them into having sexual contact by making
them feel like they had no choice.3
1
Allen J. Beck et al., Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, “Sexual Victimization in
Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates,” 2011-12 (2013), available at
www.bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri1112.pdf
2
Id. At *11-13
3
Id. at *14.
24 of 57
190. The 2014 CRIPA Report held that endemic and unconstitutional violence occurring
at Riker’s Island was the result of “widespread and longstanding systemic deficiencies within DOC
and its jail complex on Rikers.” 4
191. The 2014 CRIPA Report, although not specifically related to sexual assault or
PREA, expressed serious “concern that DOC may be under-reporting sexual assault allegations.
192. The 2014 CRIPA Report specified that the Department of Justice was concerned
that THE CITY OF NEW YORK was not reporting allegations of sexual assault “consistently”
and “in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq., and the
relevant DOJ implementing regulations. We encourage the Department to examine these issues.”
193. In 2016, the CITY OF NEW YORK through its Board of Correction (BOC), a
mayoral agency of the CITY OF NEW YORK implemented Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment
Minimum Standards that are the claimed equivalent to Federal PREA Standards after then Public
Advocate Leticia James petitioned them to do so.
194. Moreover, the 2014 CRIPA Report noted that the backlog of prosecutions of staff
allowed officers who had committed egregious misconduct to remain on staff.
195. In 2016, the Moss Group, a private consultant hired by Defendants with money
obtained from Federal grants aimed at ensuring PREA compliance, found nearly identical failures
with respect to the CITY’s investigation of sexual assault allegations.
196. The Moss Group excoriated the CITY’s lack of diligence in undertaking and
completing investigations and the investigators’ lack of training.
4
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the S.D.N.Y., CRIPA Investigation of the New York Department
of Correction Jails on Rikers Island (2014), available
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-
sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf (last visited November 22, 2015).
25 of 57
197. The City appears to have made no real changes in response.
198. In its March 16, 2022, report the Nunez Monitor noted that staff failed to detect an
inmate’s repeated sexual misconduct with [incarcerated] individuals […] on multiple occasions.
None of the misconduct was detected by facility intake staff and came to light only as a result of
[an audit requested by the Nunez monitor].”
199. On or about February 8, 2021, a female inmate was sexually assaulted by a
transgender inmate, Ramel Blount, in the bathroom of RMSC.
200. The February 8, 2021, sexual assault victim was given a rape kit examination and
inmate Blount was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty.
201. The February 8, 2021, incident received a large amount of media coverage, the
majority of was extremely critical of DOC, including that DOC had allowed a transgender inmate
with a penis to be housed with female inmates.
202. Upon information and belief, following this incident, Defendants resolved to avoid
public criticism by not only failing to investigate Plaintiff’s sexual assault but also altering records
and evidence to ensure that the truth never comes out.
203. At all times herein, Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, had a non-delegable duty
to provide medical and behavioral health services to inmates and detainees in its correctional
facilities, including to Plaintiff.
204. At all times herein, Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, was responsible for the
health, safety, supervision, and welfare of inmates and detainees in its correctional facilities,
including RMSC where Plaintiff was housed.
205. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is liable for the oversight of its agents,
servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or employees, who include officials and staff at DOC.
26 of 57
206. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is liable for the oversight of HHC’s
provision of medical and mental health services at Rikers Island and to inmates at HHC’s area
hospitals. its agents, servants, contractors, subcontractors, and/or employees, who include
officials.
207. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior for the acts and/or omissions of its agents, contractors, servants and/or employees, who
include officials and staff at DOC.
208. Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior for the acts and/or omissions of HHC its agents, contractors, servants and/or employees.
209. Defendant, HHC, is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts and/or
omissions of its agents, contractors, servants and/or employees.
210. The aforesaid violations of Plaintiff’s rights are not an isolated incident. Defendant,
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, is aware, from lawsuits, notices of claims and complaints, that many
members of its Department of Corrections are insufficiently trained, and such improper training
has often resulted in a deprivation of civil rights. Despite such notice, THE CITY OF NEW YORK
has failed to take corrective action. This failure caused the Defendants to violate Plaintiff’s rights
and injure Plaintiff.
211. At all times relevant herein, Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, by its agents,
servants and/or employees, carelessly, and recklessly trained the individual Defendants for the
positions of Correctional Officer and Correctional Captain.
212. At all times Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, by through its Department of
Corrections and its agents, servants and/or employees caused, permitted and allowed the individual
27 of 57
Defendants to act in an illegal, unprofessional, and/or deliberate manner in carrying out their
official duties and/or responsibilities.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence
Against All Defendants
213. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully
set forth at length herein.
214. Defendants and all DOC employees owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as a pretrial
detainee and/or an inmate in their custody.
215. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to prevent the conduct alleged, because
under the same or similar circumstances, a reasonable, prudent and careful person should have
anticipated that injury to Plaintiff or to those in a like situation would probably result from the
foregoing conduct.
216. Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to prevent the conduct alleged, because
under the same or similar circumstances, a reasonable, prudent and careful person should have
anticipated that injury to Plaintiff or to those in a like situation would probably result from the
foregoing conduct.
217. Defendants knew or should have known of Plaintiff’s assailants’ histories of mental
disturbance and violent behavior.
218. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff was specifically at risk of
sexual assault due to her background and characteristics.
sexual assault because they were repeatedly warned of same.
28 of 57
sexual assault because they allowed a male sexual predator to live in Plaintiff’s housing unit.
221. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff was particularly vulnerable
to the risk of assault and/or that she was targeted.
222. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to protect her from violence
caused by other detainees in their custody.
223. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by failing to protect her from violence
caused by other employees.
224. Defendants failed to take any steps to prevent Plaintiff from being assaulted,
battered, sexually assaulted, denied medical and mental health care, and forensic services, as well
as food, medicine, and basic necessitates in retaliation for her reporting of a sexual assault and/or
exercising her right to grieve Defendants acts and omissions.
225. These failures constituted a breach of the Defendants’ non-delegable duties to
Plaintiff.
226. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent, careless, reckless,
intentional, unlawful, unconstitutional, and/or deliberately indifferent conduct, Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer, and will continue to suffer, severe emotional distress and mental
anguish, violation of her right to privacy, economic loss, and other damages.
227. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees
and costs, injunctive relief, and other relief.
29 of 57
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision,
and Retention of Employees and Contractors
Against Defendants CITY OF NEW YORK and HHC
229. Defendants CITY and HHC employed the individual Defendants named herein.
230. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK employed the corrections staff located at
Riker’s Island.
231. Defendant HHC employed the medical staff and contractors at Rikers Island.
232. Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, servants, employees,
officers, and contractors were unfit for their positions.
233. Defendants failed to make reasonable hiring inquiries and/or conduct reasonable
and prompt investigations into their agents, servants, employees, officers, and contractors.
234. Defendants hired and retained the individual Defendants despite their propensities
to commit the tortious acts.
235. Defendants failed to adequately train their agents, servants, employees, officers,
and contractors.
236. Defendants failed to adequately supervise and monitor their agents, servants,
employees, officers, and contractors.
237. The CITY’s use of HHC as its prison medical contractor was negligent, careless
and reckless given the HHC’s handling of incarcerated individuals at Kings County Hospital
Center pursuant to the findings in Reynolds v. Ward, and the DOJ’s CRIPA investigation into
HHC.
30 of 57
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
240. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs as if
set forth fully herein.
241. By the actions and omissions described above, amongst others, Defendants have
engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, with the intent to cause, or a disregard for the
substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress.
242. Defendants’ breach of their duties of care owed to Plaintiff directly resulted in
physical, mental, and emotional harm.
243. Defendants breached a duty owed to Plaintiff protect her safety, health and well-
being while under Defendants’ care, custody and supervision.
244. Defendants breached the duty owed to Plaintiff to protect her privacy and bodily
integrity while in their care custody and supervision.
245. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct Plaintiff has
suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional distress and mental anguish for which she is
entitled to an award of damages.
31 of 57
246. Defendants’ intentional, reckless, malicious, willful and wanton conduct entitles
Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages to the greatest extent permitted by law.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of NYS Civil Rights Law § 52-b and NYC Admin Code § 10-180 et seq.
247. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs as if
set forth fully herein.
248. Defendants are liable Pursuant to New York State Civil Rights Law § 52-b.
249. Defendants are liable Pursuant to New York City Admin. Code §10-180.
250. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that Defendant ROGERS
recorded a video of Plaintiff while she was showering and naked.
251. Plaintiff made a grievance related to this incident which was not addressed.
252. Upon information and belief, Defendant ROGERS recorded “intimate images” of
Plaintiff without her consent, and while was an inmate.
253. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is identifiable in the “intimate images” that
were obtained and recorded by Defendant ROGERS without her knowledge or consent.
254. Upon information and belief, Defendants disclosed or allowed to be disclosed,
Plaintiff’s “intimate images” as defined in subdivision 5 of section 250.40 of the New York State
Penal Law.
255. Upon information and belief, Defendants published or allowed to be published,
Plaintiff’s “intimate images” as defined in subdivision 6 of section 250.40 of the New York State
Penal Law.
256. Upon information and belief, Defendant ROGERS recorded the video for herself
and/or for the benefit of corrections officers who wished to see Plaintiff naked.
32 of 57
257. Upon information and belief, Defendant ROGERS recorded the video for some
nefarious purpose that will be ascertained during discovery.
258. Upon information and belief, there is also a video of Plaintiff being sexually
assaulted that contains her “intimate images” as defined in subdivision 6 of section 250.40 of the
New York State Penal Law.
259. Defendants knew that Plaintiff did not consent to the video or recording of her
“intimate images.”
260. Defendants failed to locate the video or even attempt to locate them.
261. Defendants failed to search staff devices to see how many staff members had access
to the videos.
262. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct Plaintiff has
263. Plaintiff’s damages include economic expenses for continuous and regular digital
and forensic monitoring of the internet, dark web, and physical locations for her intimate visual
depictions and costs associated with removal of the images from their various disseminated
locations on the internet, dark web, and physical locations including servers and devices and the
legal, investigatory, and forensic costs associated therewith.
33 of 57
FIFTTH CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments
Against all Individual Defendants
266. Plaintiff as a pretrial detainee had the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from
punishment while in Defendant’s custody, care, and control.
267. Plaintiff, as an inmate in the care, custody, and control of Defendants, was at all
times entitled to a safe living environment, adequate and timely medical treatment, and to be free
from force and or injury.
268. Defendants failed to intervene prior to or during Plaintiffs’ assaults and sexual
assaults.
269. Defendants violated the law and Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments when they introduced a heterosexual male sexual predator into Plaintiff’s housing
unit and repeatedly ignored Plaintiff’s pleas for help.
270. Defendants violated the law and Constitutional rights when they denied her medical
and mental healthcare following her sexual assaults and retaliated against her for reporting her
sexual assaults by removing her from Protective custody.
271. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s right to be free from sexual
assault and her serious medical needs.
272. Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the harm they knew or should have
known was likely to befall Plaintiff from their action/inaction.
273. Each individual defendant acted under pretense and color of state law and in their
individual and official capacities and within the scope of their employment.
34 of 57
274. The individual Defendant’s acts were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without
authority of law, and in abuse of their powers.
275. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of
his constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
276. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs caused
Plaintiff significant pain, injuries, and harm.
277. Defendant’s acts and omissions shock the conscience.
278. Defendants acted and/or failed to act maliciously and sadistically and for the
purpose of harming Plaintiff.
279. Defendants failed to intervene or otherwise protect Plaintiff as they were obligated to do
as alleged above.
280. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions served no legitimate government purpose.
281. By reason of the foregoing, defendants Plaintiff of rights, remedies, privileges, and
immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth
282. As a direct and proximate result of the acts detailed above, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Monell Liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against THE CITY OF NEW YORK And HHC
284. The aforesaid violations of Plaintiff’s rights are not an isolated incident.
35 of 57
285. Defendants were aware, aware from lawsuits, notices of claims, investigations,
consent orders, and complaints that many agents, servants, employees, and contractors of DOC
and HHC were insufficiently trained, and such improper training has often resulted in a deprivation
of civil rights.
286. Despite such notice, THE CITY OF NEW YORK has failed to take corrective
action. This failure caused the Defendants to violate Plaintiff’s rights and injure Plaintiff.
287. At all times, Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK by its agents, servants and/or
employees, carelessly, and recklessly trained the individual Defendants for their employment.
288. At all times, Defendants THE CITY OF NEW YORK caused, permitted, and/or
allowed the individual Defendants to act in an illegal, unprofessional, and/or deliberate manner in
carrying out their official duties and/or responsibilities.
289. At all times, Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK, by its agents, servants and/or
employees carelessly, and recklessly retained in its employ, the individual Defendants, who were
clearly unfit for their positions, and acted in an illegal, unprofessional, and/or deliberate manner
in carrying out their official duties and/or responsibilities.
290. The occurrence(s) and injuries sustained by Plaintiff, were caused by, and as a result
of the malicious, careless, reckless, and/or intentional conduct of Defendant THE CITY OF NEW
YORK.
291. On or about August 4, 2014, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern
District of New York served THE CITY OF NEW YORK with its public report of the findings
36 of 57
from its investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)
[hereinafter as ‘2014 CRIPA Report’]. 5
292. The 2014 CRIPA Report held that endemic and unconstitutional violence occurring
at Riker’s Island was the result of “widespread and longstanding systemic deficiencies within DOC
and its jail complex on Rikers.”
293. The 2014 CRIPA Report, although not specifically related to sexual assault or
PREA, expressed serious “concern that DOC may be under-reporting sexual assault allegations.”
294. The 2014 CRIPA Report specified that the Department of Justice was concerned
that THE CITY OF NEW YORK was not reporting allegations of sexual assault “consistently”
and “in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601 et seq., and the
relevant DOJ implementing regulations. We encourage the Department to examine these issues.”
295. Although the 2014 CRIPA Report did not specifically investigate sexual assault at
Rikers Island, the policies, patterns and practices identified therein continue to this day and are
relevant to the chaos, disorder, mismanagement, corruption, and ineptitude that plague Rikers
Island.
296. In February of 2018, the New York State Commission on Correction [hereinafter
‘NYSCOC’] issued the findings regarding Rikers Island in its report titled “The Worst Offenders:
Report: The Most Problematic Local Correctional Facilities in New York State.”
297. In their February 2018 report, the NYS COC held that “Riker’s Island continues to
be plagued by managerial failures, significant structural problems, regulatory compliance failures,
5
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the S.D.N.Y., CRIPA Investigation of the New York Department
of Correction Jails on Rikers Island (2014), available
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-
sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf (last visited November 22, 2015).
37 of 57
identified deficiencies that remain unaddressed, and unabated harm to both staff and inmates
alike.”
298. On or about August 24, 2021, the Nunez Monitoring Team [hereinafter ‘Nunez
Monitor’] “advised Judge Swain about their “grave concerns about the conditions and pervasive
high level of disorder and chaos in the New York City jails.”
299. The Nunez Monitor noted increasing use of force, “a disturbing rise in the level of
security lapses and unchecked breaches and failures of basic security protocols, and instances of
inadequate supervision, all of which are compounded by staffing challenges.”
300. The Nunez Monitor found that the “deterioration of basic security protocols and
denial of basic services and protections coincide[d] with a spike in employee absenteeism that
began in April 2021.”
Defendants’ abject failure to ensure staff is present in the housing units.

301. The 2014 CRIPA Report found that “pervasive inmate-on-inmate violence is
largely due to DOC’s failure to adequately supervise […]. Staff cluster together on living units
instead of interacting with inmates, and too often leave their assigned posts. They frequently fail
to closely monitor inmate conduct, and often do not intervene as necessary in order to prevent
verbal disagreements from escalating. When physical altercations do occur, staff sometimes fail
to intervene in a timely manner, exposing inmates to a significant risk of serious injuries.”
302. On or about September 10, 2021, Ross MacDonald, then Chief Medical Officer of
New York City Correctional Health Services (CHS), opined that that the “collapse in basic jail
operations,” indicated that the “City is [not] capable of safely managing the custody of those it is
charged with incarcerating” noting that DOC is “failing to provide correctional staff to supervise
some housing areas.”
38 of 57
303. On or about September 15, 2021, then Mayor de Blasio declared a state of
emergency in the City’s jails, noting that “excessive staff absenteeism” is affecting health
operations and creating “a serious risk to the necessary maintenance and delivery of sanitary
conditions, access to basic services including showers, meals, visitation, religious services,
commissary, and recreation.”
304. In their December 6, 2021, report, the Nunez Monitor Team opined that “[t]he most
extreme illustration of the Department’s inability to properly manage its Staff is that on any given
day in October 2021, an average of approximately 80 posts went unmanned—including posts in
which Staff directly supervise and facilitate services for people in custody.”
305. The Nunez Monitor’s Eleventh Report highlighted “the paradox between the
exceptionally large number of uniformed staff employed by DOC and the Department’s pervasive
belief that it is ‘understaffed.’” The Monitoring Team found that the real problem is the reckless
and careless manner in which staff is deployed, not the number of staff available.
306. The Nunez Monitoring Team identified multiple, longstanding, and obvious
deficiencies in the way that the CITY OF NEW YORK staffs the DOC that have led to dysfunction,
danger, and death stating that “[t]he level of dysfunction within the Department’s staffing
framework is unmatched by any jurisdiction with which the Monitoring Team has had experience.”
307. The Monitor further opined that “the Department’s most critical resource—its
staff—is so poorly administered that even the most basic aspects of workforce management have
been neglected and/or circumvented for decades. This mismanagement has directly caused a sea
of inadequacies and impediments to reform.” (emphasis in original).
308. “Both the over-deployment (e.g., too many staff responding to an alarm) and
underdeployment (e.g., unmanned posts or insufficient numbers of staff to support proactive
39 of 57
supervision) have been consistent contributing factors to the unnecessary and excessive use of
force and violence (e.g., inmate on inmate fights and stabbings and slashings) on the housing
units.”
309. The Monitoring Team opined that there is a direct link between these staffing
failures and the ubiquitous force and violence in housing units, finding that “delayed access to
medical treatment, delayed or canceled access to programming and recreation, and delayed access
to commissary are frequently found by the Department to have caused tension that ultimately leads
to uses of force and violence on the housing units.”
310. The Nunez Monitoring Team concluded that the DOC “does not have the ability to
accurately and easily identify what facility a staff member is assigned to, what tour and/or post
they may work or what their status is (e.g., active duty, sick, MMR, etc.).”
311. Further, the Monitoring Team found that DOC engaged in a pattern and practice of
understaffing housing units by “tolerating a culture that allows staff to circumvent assignments to
housing units.”
312. Even supervisors assigned to housing units perform only “perfunctory tours while
on site. For example, immediately after a supervisor completed their tour, the Monitoring Team
visited the same housing unit only to find multiple unsecured doors and covered cell windows.”
313. The CITY OF NEW YORK’s DOC “allows non-essential post assignments to be
filled prior to filling posts required to meet core Department responsibilities. This is simply
unheard of in a correctional setting. A post assignment classification system and critical post list
are central to the safe operation of any facility and the lack of such a structure creates a
disorganized and unregulated staffing pattern that can easily lead to imminent danger.”
40 of 57
314. Facilities do not reconcile their daily rosters to ensure that all staff who are present
are assigned to a post. For instance, a staff member may be marked as present, removed from the
roster for their assigned post, but not re-assigned to another post.”
315. “Among the Department’s 7,900 uniform staff, almost 30% are not available to
work with the incarcerated population and many of them likely do not have any other
responsibilities.
316. “Department and OATH caseloads are already overwhelmed with a significant
number of cases. As a result, [sick leave] abuses, like use of force miscount, appear to continue
with little accountability in a timely manner.”
317. DOC allows staff to place bids for specific posts which is unheard of in the
correctional community because it leads to experienced staff being assigned posts where they do
not supervise housing units.
318. Like some other uniformed agencies like the New York City Police Department
[NYPD], the DOC has unlimited sick leave.
319. It is axiomatic that if staff have access to unlimited sick leave, some of them may
seek to abuse that benefit.
320. This is why other departments, like the NYPD have policies that require 1)
verification of actual illness and 2) ensure that sick leave is not abused.
321. Despite decades of abuse of the sick leave system by some employees, DOC failed
to develop any policy to ensure that sick leave was not abused.
322. Beginning in April of 2021, larger numbers of DOC staff than usual began calling
out sick or failing to appear at all.
323. This left most posts, including Plaintiff’s PC dorm unmanned.
41 of 57
The CITY OF NEW YORK has utterly failed to ensure that its supervisory
employees are suitable candidates for their positions and that they are properly supervised
and trained to perform their functions.
324. The Nunez Monitoring Team has repeatedly told the CITY OF NEW YORK that
they need to “expand eligibility criteria for promoting staff to facility leadership teams (e.g.,
Wardens and above)” to individuals from outside of DOC.
325. The Nunez Monitoring Team warned that wardens and other facility leadership “do
not appear to possess the requisite expertise, willingness or ability to lead the reform effort in the
individual jails.”
326. Between 1978 and 1979 the CITY OF NEW YORK entered into multiple consent
degrees to resolve class action litigation brought by detainees in its custody.
327. The 1970s consent decrees are commonly and jointly referred to as the ‘Benjamin’
Consent Decrees after one of the lead Plaintiffs.
328. Putting Defendant FEENEY in charge of something as important as PREA
compliance was negligent, if not reckless and/or proof of the CITY’s deliberate disregard for its
inmates’ constitutional rights.
329. Upon information and belief, Defendant FEENEY has no investigative or law
enforcement experience.
330. Defendant FEENEY has worked for DOC for many years, but her work had been
limited to attempting to comply with the ancient Benjamin Consent Decrees which the DOC flouts
year after year.
42 of 57
331. As noted by Judge Baer in 2000, the Benjamin the City’s refusal to make changes
apart from “patently ineffective gestures” “do not prove a lack of deliberate indifference, they
demonstrate it.”
332. The Benjamin Consent Decrees, which remain in effect in part, mandated that the
CITY OF NEW YORK maintain the physical plant of the jails in a condition safe for human
habitation including, but not limited to ensuring vermin and insect control, sanitation,
maintenance, heat, and cooling, and refuse removal.
333. As such, DOC’s decision to elevate FEENEY to a position where she was in charge
of the most vulnerable population of the prison – its female inmates – in addition to her other duties
was negligent, careless, reckless, and deliberately indifferent.
334. As such, THE CITY OF NEW YORK has known for some time that its wardens
were not willing and/or capable of performing the basic functions of their positions.
The CITY OF NEW YORK’s Pattern and Practice of Failing to Investigate Staff
Misconduct.
335. The 2014 CRIPA Report by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
New York found that investigations into staff misconduct at Riker’s Island were “grossly
inadequate” “cursory” and plagued by the same “common and systemic deficiencies.”
336. The 2014 CRIPA Report found that staff ensure that misconduct is not reported by
attempting to interviewing inmates who complain about staff misconduct “at cell fronts and/or
within sight and/or hearing of other inmates” where they cannot provide a statement without being
labeled a snitch which will subject them to violence from fellow inmates.
337. The 2014 CRIPA Report found that “DOC fails to conduct rigorous and timely
investigations […] and does not consistently hold staff accountable” which results in DOC staff
43 of 57
relying on the fact “that they will face little or no consequences for their unlawful conduct” to
engage in further unconstitutional acts.
338. The 2014 CRIPA Report found that supervisors were almost never held accountable
for their failures to supervise staff.
339. The 2014 CRIPA Report found the “Captains assigned to investigate incidents at
the facility level do not receive specialized training in investigative techniques and show little
familiarity with basic investigative skills or procedures [and instead] simply summarize [the]
reports provided by the officers involved….”
340. The 2014 CRIPA Report found the DOC’s grievance system involved dangerous
delays and failed to adequately respond to emergency grievances including grievances regarding
staff misconduct that endangers inmates.
341. Moreover, the 2014 CRIPA Report noted that the backlog of prosecutions of staff
allowed officers who had committed egregious misconduct to remain on staff.
342. In 2016, the Moss Group, a private consultant hired by Defendants with money
obtained from Federal grants aimed at ensuring PREA compliance, found nearly identical failures
with respect to the CITY’s investigation of sexual assault allegations.
343. The Moss Group excoriated the CITY’s lack of diligence in undertaking and
completing investigations and the investigators’ lack of training.
344. The City appears to have made no real changes in response.
44 of 57
348. Plaintiff as a pretrial detainee had the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from
punishment while in Defendant’s custody, care, and control.
349. Plaintiff, as an inmate in the care, custody, and control of Defendants, was at all
times entitled to a safe living environment, adequate and timely medical treatment, and to be free
from force and or injury.
350. Defendants failed to intervene prior to or during Plaintiffs’ assaults and sexual
assaults.
351. The CITY knew or should have known that its policies and procedures and/or
practices and customs as outlined above would lead to sexual assault.
352. He CITY’s failure train its staff and to enact appropriate policies led to the violation
of and Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when they introduced a
heterosexual male sexual predator into Plaintiff’s housing unit and repeatedly ignored Plaintiff’s
pleas for help.
353. The CITY violated the law and Constitutional rights when they denied her medical
and mental healthcare following her sexual assaults and retaliated against her for reporting her
sexual assaults by removing her from Protective custody.
354. The CITY was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s right to be free from sexual
assault and her serious medical needs.
45 of 57
355. At all times alleged herein, the CITY and HHC were aware that their employees
have been involved in frequent coverups of inmate assaults and in the assaults themselves. sexual
assaults
356. At all times alleged herein, the CITY and HHC are aware that inmates may be afraid
to articulate the nature of their sexual assault when surrounded by those who may be involved in
the assault or a coverup of same.
357. At all times alleged herein, the CITY and HHC were aware information provided
by their employees and/or contractors must be verified prior to making a decision to deny an inmate
access to an area hospital, especially in the case of an assault or sexual assault.
358. The CITY and HHC failed to enact and promulgate basic policies and procedures
in place regarding the diagnosis, treatment, testing, and care of inmates who have been victims of
sexual assault.
359. The CITY and HHC failed to train their staff to ensure that victims of sexual assault
are provided appropriate medical and mental health testing, diagnosis, and treatment.
360. The CITY and HHC failed to enact and promulgate basic policies and procedures
in place regarding the collection of evidence of sexual assault, thus ensuring that Plaintiff and
countless others like her will not be able to easily prove their claims in court and ensuring that
sexual predators on Rikers Island will not be arrested, prosecuted, or charged for their crimes.
361. The CITY and HHC failed to train their staff regarding the collection of evidence
of sexual assault, thus ensuring that Plaintiff and countless others like her will not be able to easily
prove their claims in court and ensuring that sexual predators on Rikers Island will not be arrested,
prosecuted, or charged for their crimes.
46 of 57
362. The CITY and HHC failed do not have a policy that directs that all inmate victims
of sexual assault who present for medical treatment and/or testing are entitled to the same
treatment, testing, and evidence collection as any other patient is entitled to receive at an area
hospital pursuant to NYS Public Health Law § 2805-i.
363. The CITY and HHC failed do not have a policy that ensures that all inmate victims
of sexual assault who present and/or are presented to them for care following a sexual assault or
report of same are treated pursuant to the standards promulgated by PREA.
364. PREA §§ 115.82 and 115.83 require the CITY, HHC, their agents, servants,
employees, and contractors, including the other defendants to ensure that:
a. Inmate victims of sexual abuse receive timely, unimpeded access to emergency
medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which
are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their
professional judgment;
b. if no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report
of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders must take preliminary steps
to protect the victim pursuant to § 115.62 and must immediately notify the
appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.
c. Inmate victims of sexual abuse while incarcerated are be offered timely information
about and timely access to emergency contraception and sexually transmitted
infections prophylaxis, in accordance with professionally accepted standards of
care, where medically appropriate.
d. To ensure that an inmate who has experienced sexual abuse in any confinement
setting is offered, and provided if accepted, medical and mental health evaluations
47 of 57
and appropriate treatment at no cost to the inmate. Appropriate treatment is
determined by medical and mental health professionals according to their
professional judgment and must be consistent with the level of care provided in the
community.
e. To ensure that victims of sexually abusive vaginal penetration are offered
pregnancy tests and if necessary, timely and comprehensive information about and
timely access to all lawful pregnancy-related medical services. All victims must be
offered tests for sexually transmitted infections as medically appropriate.
365. PREA § 115.83 also requires the CITY, HHC to conduct a mental health evaluation
of all known inmate-on-inmate abusers within 60 days of learning of such abuse history and offer
treatment when deemed necessary by mental health practitioners.
366. The CITY and HHC failed to promulgate policies consistent with the Constitution,
PREA and the laws of the State of New York and City of New York.
367. The CITY and HHC failed to ensure that mental health evaluations to known
inmate-on-inmate abusers, including the Perpetrator were performed.
368. The CITY and HHC failed to enact policies regarding retaliation for reporting
sexual assault and/or sexual harassment.
369. The CITY and HHC failed to train their employees, agents, servants, and
contractors regarding the timely and complete reporting and investigation of sexual assault and
sexual harassment complaints.
contractors regarding the reporting of male inmates in female dorms.
48 of 57
contractors regarding identifying and/or classifying and/or re-classifying inmates who are sexual
predators.
contractors regarding identifying and/or classifying and/or reclassifying inmates who are targets
for sexual assault.
contractors regarding their duties to report and intervene in retaliation or alleged retaliation for
reporting crimes, misconduct, and sexual assault.
contractors regarding their duties to report and intervene in staff misconduct and complete timely
and accurate investigations regarding staff misconduct.
contractors regarding their duties terminate the employment of any individual who has committed
acts of misconduct and/or crimes.
376. The CITY and HHC knew, to a moral certainty that their failures to enact
appropriate policies and procedures would lead to the violation of the civil and constitutional rights
of female inmates, including Plaintiff.
377. The CITY and HHC knew, to a moral certainty that their failures to train their
agents, servants, and/or employees would lead to the violation of the civil and constitutional rights
of female inmates, including Plaintiff.
378. The CITY and HHC knew, to a moral certainty that their failures would lead to the
sexual assault of female inmates, including Plaintiff.
49 of 57
379. The CITY and HHC knew that there was a pattern and practice of destroying,
concealing, and/or failing to make and/or retain reports mandated by law, including those
mandated by PREA, at Rikers Island.
380. The CITY and HHC knew that there was a pattern and practice of hiding incidents
of sexual assault from the PREA Investigators.
381. The CITY and HHC knew that this pattern and practice was unlawful and
unconstitutional as it exposed inmates, especially female inmates, including Plaintiff, to sexual
assault.
382. Defendants violated the NYSHRL and NYCHRL by refusing, withholding, and/or
denying Plaintiff, a female victim of sexual assault, the services that the CITY and HHC are duty
bound to provide.
383. Defendants violated the NYSHRL and NYCHRL by refusing, withholding, and/or
denying Plaintiff basic investigative, medical, mental health, and evidence collection services they
are duty bound to offer.
384. Defendants refused Plaintiff these basic services on the basis of her gender and/or
status as a victim of sexual assault.
385. To the extent services were provided to Plaintiff, they were provided in a
discriminatory and hostile manner because of Plaintiff’s gender and/or through policies, patterns,
and practices that had a discriminatory and disparate impact of Plaintiff because of her gender.
386. These policies, patterns, and practices were or should have been known
to led to the reasonable certainty that inmates, especially female inmates on Rikers Island will
suffer sexual assaults.
50 of 57
387. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, and performed in disregard
for Plaintiff’s rights, privileges, and immunities under New York State law and Federal Law.
388. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
sustained damages.
389. Plaintiff further seeks punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
390. The CITY was deliberately indifferent to the harm they knew or should have known
was likely to befall Plaintiff from their action/inaction.
391. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive
Plaintiff of her constitutional rights secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First, Fifth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
392. Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical and security
needs caused Plaintiff significant pain, injuries, and harm.
393. By reason of the foregoing, defendants Plaintiff of rights, remedies, privileges, and
immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth
394. As a direct and proximate result of the acts detailed above, Plaintiff sustained the
damages hereinbefore alleged.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of NYS Public Health Law § 2805-i and NYCHRL
395. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully
396. Plaintiff is an aggrieved person as defined by the NYCHRL.
51 of 57
397. The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived
gender.
398. The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived
status as a victim of a sexual offense.
399. Defendants are providers of public accommodation as defined in the NYSHRL and
NYCHRL.
400. Defendant HHC’s area hospitals, including Bellevue and Elmhurst, are providers
of public accommodation as defined in the NYCHRL.
401. The NYCHRL prohibits providers of public accommodation from the following
on the basis of actual or perceived gender and/or status as a victim of a sex offense.: (a) Refusing,
withholding from, or denying the full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions, of any
of the accommodations, advantages, services, facilities or privileges of the place or provider of
public accommodation and (b) Representing that any accommodation, advantage, facility or
privilege of any such place or provider of public accommodation is not available when in fact it is
available.
402. The NYCHRL § 8-107(6) states that aiding, abetting, incident, compelling, and/or
coercing, any discriminatory practices forbidden by the NYCHRL or attempting to do so is also
an unlawful discriminatory practice.
403. CITY has a non-delegable duty to provide medical and mental health treatment to
inmates in its custody.
404. HHC has a non-delegable duty to provide medical and mental health treatment to
inmates in the custody of the CITY including through Correctional Health Services (CHS).
52 of 57
405. HHC provides medical and mental health treatment to inmates in the custody of the
CITY including at its area hospitals, including, but not limited to Elmhurst Hospital and Bellevue
Hospital.
406. Defendants CITY and HHC jointly operate medical and mental health facilities on
Rikers Island, Bellevue an Elmhurst.
407. HHC has a statutory duty to provide medical and mental health treatment to victims
of sexual assault who ask for treatment.
408. PREA §§ 115.82 and 115.83 require that those who have been sexually assaulted
and/or abused, be given the same medical and mental healthcare as they would receive in the
community.
409. In New York, he minimum standards for treating, testing, and/or offering services
to victims of sexual assault are codified in the New York Public Health Law, including § 2805-i.
410. Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the same medical and mental health treatment
and testing that Plaintiff would have received at an area hospital pursuant to NYS Public Health
Law § 2805-i.
411. Defendants denied Plaintiff access to forensic testing, a rape kit performed by a
certified SANE nurse, or any evidence collection services as required by NYS Public Health Law
§ 2805-i.
412. Plaintiff was denied access to medical testing related to sexual assault.
413. Plaintiff was denied access to prophylactic medications for sexually transmitted
disease and pregnancy.
414. Plaintiff was denied access to a timely rape kit.
53 of 57
415. Plaintiff was denied timely access to emergency medical and forensic testing
treatment for about 10 hours following her last sexual assault.
416. Defendants falsified medical, mental health, and DOC records in an effort cover up
what had happened to Plaintiff.
417. Defendants falsified medical, mental health, and DOC records in an effort cover up
their departures.
418. Defendants were required by New York State Public Health Law § 2805-i to
“maintain sexual offense evidence and the chain of custody” of sexual offense evidence.
419. Defendants not only failed to collect evidence of Plaintiff’s sexual assault,
including her bedsheets, hospital clothing, or other physical and forensic evidence, they destroyed
and/or conspired to destroy and/or spoliate the evidence related to her sexual assault.
420. Defendants were required by New York State Public Health Law § 2805-i to offer
Plaintiff a sexual offense examination but failed or otherwise refused to do so.
421. Defendants refused to provide Plaintiff with adequate testing for sexually
transmitted diseases and infections despite multiple requests for same.
422. Defendants were required by New York State Public Health Law § 2805-i to offer
Plaintiff the services of a local rape crisis or victim assistance organization but failed or otherwise
refused to do so.
423. Defendants were required by New York State Public Health Law to offer Plaintiff
a SANE nurse or other certified forensic examiner to perform any state mandated forensic
examination but failed or otherwise refused to do so.
424. Defendants were required by New York State Public Health Law § 2805-i to
“offer[] and mak[e] available appropriate HIV post-exposure treatment therapies; including a
54 of 57
seven day starter pack of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis” and to provide Plaintiff with
“information relating to and the provision of emergency contraception.”
425. Defendants failed to offer any emergency contraception in violation of New York
State Public Health Law § 2805-i.
426. Defendants failed to offer any HIV prophylaxis treatment, in violation of New York
State Public Health Law § 2805-i.
427. Defendants failed or otherwise refused to bring Plaintiff to an area hospital with a
SANE nurse or other certified forensic examiner or offer to do so.
428. Defendants’ refusals to comply with New York State Public Health Law § 2805-i
were not made in good faith but were born of a desire and/or conspiracy to cover-up and destroy
evidence of the sexual assaults that they knew had taken place.
429. Upon information and belief, Defendants do not have staff that are licensed and
trained to conduct the required examinations and/or evidence collection and refused to take
Plaintiff to a hospital because they knew it could possibly trigger an outside investigation by the
New York City Police Department and/or the New York State Department of Health.
430. Plaintiff also alleges liability pursuant to per se negligence.
55 of 57
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the following be entered jointly and
severally against Defendants and for a jury trial on all causes of action:
a. Adjudge and declare that Defendants' actions and inactions, as described

herein violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the First, Fifth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and
b. Adjudge and declare that Defendants' actions and inactions, as described
herein violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the State of New York, and the
Laws of the City and State of New York as identified herein; and
c. Adjudge and declare that Defendants' actions and inactions, as described
herein violate CRIPA and PREA and the regulations promulgated thereto; and
d. Compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial
by jury on all causes of action and to be entered jointly and severally against Defendants
for Plaintiff’s physical injuries, mental anguish, violation of her rights to privacy and bodily
integrity, and psychological injuries, Constitutional injuries, and economic damages
sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the events alleged herein; and
e. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, together with the costs of this
action; and
f. Any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: New York, New York

September 23, 2023
Respectfully,
LIAKAS LAW, P.C.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff
ROSE DOE
40 Wall Street, 50th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Tel: (212) 937-6655
______________________________
CASSANDRA ROHME, ESQ.
56 of 57
VERIFICATION
CASSANDRA ROHME, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State
of New York, says that she is a Partner in the office of Liakas Law, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff
who is proceeding under the pseudonym ROSE DOE, and affirms the following statements to be
the truth under penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR § 2106:
That she has read the foregoing Summons and Complaint and knows the contents thereof,
that the same is true to her knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon
information and belief, and as to those matters, she believes them to be true based on conversations
with the Plaintiff and investigations conducted by the office of the undersigned.
Deponent further states that the reason why this verification is not made by Plaintiff is that
Plaintiff is not presently in the County where the undersigned maintains her office.
Dated: New York, New York

November 23, 2023
CASSANDRA ROHME, ESQ.
57 of 57

Rose Doe v. The City of New York, Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rose Doe v. The City of New York, Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 11/24/2023 12:00 AM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH

defendants, respectfully alleges as follows:

Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments puissant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.

and brought to Rikers Island on December 5, 2021.

her Protective Custody dormitory in the women’s prison.

in Rose M. Singer Center (RMSC) the female jail.

pimp out to male inmates and staff.

meaning they threw his belongings out of the housing unit.

further civil rights violations.

terror of being sentenced to further incarceration.

JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

considered a part of Bronx County for jurisdictional purposes.

or barred by the failure to timely file a Notice of Claim.

the claims herein.

notice requirements of that section.

treatment, care, and access to an appropriate diet and medication.

would be a target for sexual assault in the prison.

the State of New York.

[hereinafter as “DOC”] was a mayoral agency of THE CITY.

behavioral health services to inmates and detainees in its correctional facilities.

collectively known as “Riker’s Island” in the Bronx, New York.

in the custody of DOC.

including the individual Defendants.

AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION [hereinafter as ‘HHC’] was a public benefit corporation of

the state of New York.

those in DOC custody, including Plaintiff.

report sexual assaults.

through its DOC.

oversight of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) unit.

RMSC based on their actual or alleged identity as transgender women.

17. At all times herein, Defendant TIFFANY ROBINSON-MCAULAY Deputy

18. At all times herein, Defendant TIFFANY ROBINSON-MCAULAY was

responsible for overseeing all PREA investigations at DOC.

employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.

employed by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.

and Security at RMSC.

24. At all times herein, Defendant MONICA JOHNSON was employed as a

25. At all times herein, Defendant PATRICIA JACQUEZ was employed as a

Captain at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.

Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.

Officer at RMSC, by the CITY OF NEW YORK through its DOC.

32. At all times herein, Defendant MIKERLEEN BOURNES was employed as a

33. At all times herein, Defendant ANTHONY SABANDO was employed as a

34. At all times herein, Defendant JAYSON SANCHEZ was employed as a

to inmates on Rikers Island.

that the Perpetrator called on April 6, 2022, around 1:26 PM.

facility for the purposes of facilitating prostitution.

those involved in prostitution at RMSC.

the scope of their employment.

identified as “the Perpetrator”].

violently sexually assaulted Plaintiff.

CRUZ and KING who brought the perpetrator to the unit.

female inmate into performing sex acts.

dress, or appearance and had a full beard.

six infractions while in DOC custody.

twenty-four incidents including one where he was arrested.

housed in RMSC’s 4 East dorm with him.

against the female inmates.

generally got along, they did not have cells.

beds, most of which were vacant.

65. There would be nowhere to escape the Perpetrator if he decided to attack.