Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 16

JUIJ6E DANIELS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT " SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

12

----------------------------------------------------------------.-- -)(

CV

4] 9

occupy WAIL STREET, an unincorporated
association by and through Christine Crowther and Diego Ibmez, as its de facto Treasurers, AMANDA
ROSE HENK, MICHELE LEE HARDESTY,
FRANCES MERCANTI-ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, and EUZABETII FAGIN

COMPLAINT 12Civ. No.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,

-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, RAYMOND KELLY, in his official capacity as Police Commissioner, JOHN DOHERTY, in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE and other presently unidentified officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New York in their official and individual capacities

r~a~J~ ECFCASEC~ If.fi ~\t~ D. """","",~7iC:-S:fj. N.Y, • CASHIERS

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------){
Plaintiffs OCCUPY WALL STREET ("OWS") by and through Christine

Crowther and Diego Ibanez, as its de facto treasurers, AMANDA ROSE HEN!{, MICHELE

LEE HARDESTY, FRANCES MERCANTl-ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR and EUZABETH

FAGIN, by their attorneys, SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP, as and for their

COMPLAINT against Defendants, allege the following:

PREUMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a declaratory judgment and civil rights action to vindicate

Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution ofthe

1

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 16
United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. Plaintiffs were deprived of their federal and state constitutional and New York State common law rights when police officers of the New York Police Department ("NYPD") and employees of the New York City Department of Sanitation ("DSNY") (together "City Departments"), acting pursuant to a policy and on the authority of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and under the direction of Commissioners Raymond Kelly and John Doherty, conducted a surprise night time raid of Zuccotti Park, a.k.a. "Liberty Park" (the "Park").
2. As part of the raid, the City Departments seized and retained possession of personal property belonging to OWS, including at least approximately 3,600 books from OWS's People's Library ("People's Library" or the "Library"), as well as various Library furnishings, computers, and other electronic equipment ("Library furnishings and equipment"). Only 1,003 of the at least approximately 3,600 books that were seized were recovered; moreover, of the recovered books, 201 were so damaged while in the possession of the aty of New York that they were made unusable. Thus, at least approximately 2,798 books were never returned or were damaged and made unusable. Almost all of the Library furnishings and equipment that were seized by Defendants were not returned or returned in an unusable condition. To this day, OWS has not been told by the City of New York what happened to the missing books and Library furnishings and equipment. Upon information and belief, the missing books were destroyed as part of the raid. Upon information and belief, the raid was authorized by Mayor Bloomberg and executed by John Doe and Richard Roe and others presently unknown to Plaintiffs ("John Doe and Richard Roe et al.") in their capacity as officials, employees and lor agents of the City Departments, except for the conduct related to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages as more particularly set forth below.
2

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 16
JURISDICllON AND VENUE
3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1988, and the Fust, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court bas jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(aX3), and 1343(a){4) as this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States. This Court has jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties and to grant all further relief deemed necessary and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has jurisdiction over the supplemental claims arising under New York State law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
4. Venue is proper for the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 (a), (b), and (c) because the claims arose in this district.
PARTIES S. Plaintiff OCcupy WALL STREET is an unincorporated association. It brings this action by and through Christine Crowther and Diego Ibadez, as its de facto treasurers. Persons associated with OWS come from different backgrounds, including elderly and young people, those with college and graduate degrees and those without formal schooling, and those with jobs and those who were laid off and are otherwise unemployed. These people come from all racial and ethnic groups and many religions, including Christianity7 Judaism and Islam. 6. A central tenet of OWS is that the growing income inequality in the United States is unjust, unacceptable, and must be rectified. OWS has petitioned the government to redress this grievance through demonstrations in New York City and throughout the country.

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 4 of 16
7. Plaintiffs MICHELE LEE HARDESTY, FRANCES MERCANTI· ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, and EllZABETH FAGIN are and were at all times relevant residents of the City of New York. Each is associated with OWS and the Library Working Group, and volunteered at the People's Library.
8. Plaintiff AMANDA ROSE HENK. is a resident of Indiana. Plaintiff Henk travelled to New York City and participated in the OWS demonstration at the Park. She is associated with OWS and the library Working Group, and volunteered at the People's Library.
9. Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized by law to maintain police and sanitation departments, which act as its agents in the areas of law enforcement and sanitation, respectively.
10. Defendant MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is the Mayor of the City of New York. The Mayor is the chief executive officer of New York City. As such, he is responsible for the actions and policies of the NYPD and SDNY. and the effectiveness and integrity of the City's government operation. Pursuant to the New York City Charter. he must establish and maintain such policies and procedures as are necessary and appropriate to accomplish this responsibility. He is sued in his official capacity.
11. Defendant RAYMOND KElLY is the NYPD's Commissioner. He is appointed by the Mayor and is the chief executive officer of the NYPD. Among other duties. Commissioner Kelly is responsible for the actions and policies of the NYPD. and for the execution of all the laws and the rules and regulations of the State, the aty and the NYPD. He is sued in his official capacity.

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 5 of 16

12. Defendant JOHN DOHERTY is the New York City Sanitation

Commissioner. He is appointed by the Mayor and is the head of the DSNY. Among other

duties, Commissioner Doherty is responsible for the functions and operations of the City relating

to the cleanliness of the streets and the disposal of waste, and for the execution of all laws, rules,

and regulations pertaining to the DSNY. He is sued in his official capacity.

13. Defendants JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE et al., whose identities are

presently unknown to Plaintiffs, are and were at all times officials, employees and/or agents of

the City Departments. They are sued in their official capacities and, with respect to the claim for

punitive damages, in their individual capacities.

14. Except as to the actions that form the basis for the claim for punitive

damages as to JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE et al., at all times relevant, the individual

defendants JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE et al. were acting under color of state law in the

course and scope of their duties and functions as offiCials, employees andlor agents of the City

Departments, and otherwise performed and engaged in conduct incidental to the performance of

their lawful functions in the course of their duties.

Background

STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. On September 17, 2011, as part of their effort to call attention to their

cause, associates of OWS established an encampment in the Park, a privately owned public space

in Manhattan's Financial District that is bounded by Trinity Place, Liberty Street, Broadway, and

Cedar Street. Soon afterwards, OWS began receiving donations of books. On or about

September 27 or 28, the General Assembly, OWS's governing body, established the library

Working Group to oversee the organization, development, and promotion of what has come to be

called the People's Library. 5

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 6 of 16

16. Prior to the protesters' eviction from the Park on November 15, 2011,

which is described below, the People's Library was located in the northeast corner of the Park.

The books were maintained on metal shelves and in plastic bins, and the Library's operation was

overseen by trained librarians.

17. By November 15, over 5,500 books had been donated to the People's

Library, and on the night of the raid at least approximately 3,600 books were in the library. The

books were donated by individuals, publishers, and authors, some of whom autographed their

books. The librarians catalogued all incoming donations. To indicate that a book belonged to

OWS, the librarians wrote or stamped "Occupy Wall Street Library" or "OWSL" somewhere on

each of the donated books. The library contained books on a wide range of subjects, including

economics, politics, and histories of resistance. It also contained classics such as works by

William Shakespeare and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and autobiographies of notable individuals, such

as the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie and the Mayor's own autobiography, Bloomberg on

B100mberl· 18.

The library accepted both new and used books. Upon information and

belief, all books were in sufficiently good condition that they were readable, with the binding

undisturbed and pages intact.

19. The library offered its books to both persons associated with OWS and

the general public. Prior to the events of November 15, which are described below, the library

served .as a forum for learning, the communication and exchange Qf ideas, and expressive activity

more generally.

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 7 of 16
The November 15th Raid and Retrieyal of Property Taken on Noyember-15th
20. On November 15, 2011, at approximately 1 a.m., the NYPD arrived at the Park and began enforcing the City's policy by announcing with a bullhorn and written fliers that OWS protesters occupying the Park must immediately remove all property from the Park and leave the Park on a temporary basis so that it could be cleaned. OWS protesters were told they would be allowed to return when this work was complete. The NYPD further announced that property OWS protesters failed to remove would be removed by the City Departments and transported to a DSNY garage on 57th Street, where, with proper identification, it could be recovered.
21. OWS protesters were warned that those who failed to leave the Park or interfered with efforts to remove property from the Park would be subject to arrest.
22. Approximately forty five minutes later, at approximately 1:45 a.m., NYPD officers moved through the Park clearing protesters. DSNY workers followed, taking possession of all belongings that were left behind. Upon information and belief, DSNY workers filled 26 DSNY trucks with property they removed from the Park.
23. When the NYPD announced that all property must be removed from the Park, an OWS protester and Library volunteer attempted to remove books from the People's Library. After he carried an arm. full of books out of the Park, he attempted to return to the Park to remove additional books. However, police officers were barricading the Park and would not permit him to return to continue removing books.
24. Upon information and belief, Mayor Bloomberg authorized and assumed ultimate responsibility for the raid.
7

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 8 of 16
25. Prior to the raid on November 15, no notice was given to OWS or its associates that all the Library books and Library furnishings and equipment would have tO,be removed from the Park.
26. Prior to seizing the books and Library furnishings and equipment, Defendants; did not provide a hearing or any other pre-deprivation procedure.
27. Upon information and belief, no emergency situation existed at the Park at or about 1 a.m. on November 15.
28. The presence of the books in the Park on November 15 did not create an emergency condition that required the immediate removal of the books.
29. Prior to November 15, NYPD officers were continually monitoring the condition of the Park, and had the opportunity to observe the People's Library. Upon information and belief, members of the NYPD were aware that the LIbrary contained many shelves and boxes of books. The NYPD knew or should have known that, under the circumstances on the night of the raid, it would not be possible to remove such a large quantity of books and Library furnishings and equipment within the time allotted by the Defendants.
30. On November 16, 2011, the day after the raid, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Fagin and Michele Lee Hardesty, both associated with OWS and volunteers at the People's Library, and three others went to the West 57tb Street DSNY Garage to retrieve the books that were seized. They gave DSNY representatives a computer printout listing the Library's books. They retrieved some oftbe items that were OWS's property and marked as such. Representatives from the DSNY and the Mayor's Office told them to return on Friday, November 18, to retrieve the additional books and Library furnishings and equipment. On Friday November 18, Plaintiffs

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 9 of 16
Elizabeth Fagin and Michele ue Hardesty and one other individual returned to the West 57th DSNY Garage to retrieve the additional books and Ubrary furnishings and equipment.
31. Of the at least approximately 3,600 books that were seized on November 15, only 1,003 were recovered. Moreover, 201 of the recovered books were so damaged that they were unusable. Thus, at least approximately 2,798 books were never returned or were damaged and made unusable. Plaintiffs estimate the value of the approximately 2,798 missing books to be at least approximately $43,000.
32. Upon information and belief, in the course of conducting the November 15 raid, officials, employees and/or agents of the City Departments destroyed many of the books that were seized in the raid. John Doe and Richard Roe et al.'s actions in destroying, facilitating the destruction, or otherwise allowing the destruction of OWS's books constituted outrageous conduct, was reckless and showed a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiffs' federal and state protected rights.
33. In addition to the books, on November 15, Defendants seized the library furnishings and equipment, which consisted of 6 computers, archival material, a ''wifi'' device, 24 metal shelves and numerous plastic bins that had contained Library. books, 3 sets of wooden drawers, approximately 8 chairs and a large tent that housed the Library. Most of these furnishings and equipment were not returned or returned in a usable condition. Plaintiffs estimate the value of the LIbrary furnishings and equipment to be at least approximately $4,000.
34. As a result of Defendants' conduct, the Library lost a substantial part of its collection and was rendered non-functional.
35. Defendants failed to train and supervise their officials, employees and agents, including John Doe and Richard Roe et ai., so as to prevent the seizure and destruction of
9

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 10 of 16
Plaintiffs' property, which resulted in the violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Constitution and laws of New York State.
36. Defendants' failure to train and supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom Defendants came into contact, including Plaintiffs.
37. The deficiency in the training and supervision of Defendants John Doe and Richard Roe et al. was an actual cause of the deprivation of Plaintiffs' rights and injuries.
38. On February 9, 2012, a notice of claim was served on the Comptroller of the City of New York. At least 30 days have elapsed since service of such notice, and adjustment and/or payment has been neglected and/or refused.
39. In taking the actions described above, the Defendants were acting under
color of state law as aforesaid.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)
40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 41. Defendants' seizure ofOWS's Library books and Library furnishings and equipment constitutes an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These actions were taken pursuant to a policy, and the decision to take such actions was made by high ranking officials of the aty of New York. 42. Defendants' destruction and failure to return or return in a usable condition OWS's seized Library books and LIbrary furnishings and equipment constitutes an
10

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 11 of 16
unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These actions were taken pursuant to a policy, and the decision to take such actions was made by high ranking officials of the aty of New York.
SECOND CLAIM FOR BELIEF
(VIOLATION OF FOURTEEN11I AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF TIlE UNITED STATES)
43. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 44. Plaintiffs have a property right in the Library books and Library furnishings and equipment. 45. Defendants' actions in (i) failing to provide a hearing or any other predeprivation procedure prior to seizing the Library books and Library furnishings and equipment and/or (li) permitting OWS's associates an unreasonably short deadline to vacate the Park with allOWS's possessions deprived OWS of its property without due process oflaw in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. These actions were taken pursuant to a policy, and the decision to take such actions was made by high ranking officials of the City of New York. 46. Additionally, Defendants' actions in failing to retum all ofOWS's Library books and Library furnishings and equipment, or in failing to return the books and Library furnishings and equipment in a usable condition deprived Plaintiffs of their property without due process of law in violation of Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
11

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 12 of 16
TRIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)
47. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 48. In seizing, destroying and/or not returning the Library's books, or not returning the books in a usable condition, Defendants destroyed OWS's forum for learning and the exchange of ideas, and otherwise interfered with the OWS's associates' ability to obtain the books. 49. The ubrary presented no danger to the Defendants or to the public that necessitated the removal and then destruction and/or failure to return the books, or failure to return the books in a usable condition. Defendants did not use the requisite care in dismantling the Library, taking possession ofthe Library's books, or in ensuring their return. Accordingly, Defendants acted with reckless and callous indifference to Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(INADEQUATE SUPERVISION AND TRAINING) SO. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 51. Defendants failed to train and supervise their officials, employees and agents, including John Doe and Richard Roe et al., so as to prevent the seizure and destruction of Plaintiffs' property, which resulted in the violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 52. Defendants' failure to train and supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom Defendants came into contact, including Plaintiffs.
12

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 13 of 16
53. The deficiency in the training and supervision of Defendants John Doe and Richard Roe et ai. was an actual cause of the constitutional deprivations and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs.
FIFrH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION) 54. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 55. Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article 1, Section 8 of the
New York State Constitution. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1, SECTION 12 OF TIlE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION) 56. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 57. Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article 1, Section 12 of the
New York State Constitution. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1, SECfION 6 OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION) 58. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 59. Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under Article I, Section 6 ofthe
New York State Constitution.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(CONVERSION) 60. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 61. The Plaintiffs have title andlor the right to possess OWS's library books and Library furnishings and equipment. Defendants' actions in seizing the books and Library furnishings and equipment, and/or failing to return the books and library furnishings and
13

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 14 of 16
equipment or failing to return them in a usable condition when Plaintiffs requested their return on November 16 and 18, 2011 constitutes conversion. Plaintiffs are damaged as a result of Defendants' actions.
62. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §l367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(REPLEVIN) 63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 64. The Plaintiffs have title and/or the right to possess OWS's Library books and library furnishings and equipment. Defendants' actions in seizing the books and library furniShings and equipment, and/or failing to return them or failing to return them in a usable condition when Plaintiffs requested their return on November 16 and 18, 2011 is the basis for replevin relief. 65. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
TENTH ClAIM FOR RELIEF (NEGLIGENCE)
66. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 67. The damage, destruction and/or failure to return Plaintiffs' library books and library furnishings and equipment was forseeable and proximately caused by the negligence, gross negligence, carelessness and/or negligent omissions of Defendants or their officials, employees and/or agents.
14

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 15 of 16
68. As a result of the negligence, gross negligence, carelessness and/or negligent omissions of Defendants, their officials, employees and/or agents, Plaintiffs have sustained monetary damages.
69. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 11367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
EI.EVENTH CLAIM FOB RElJEr
(NEGUGENT SUPERVISION AND TRAINING) 70. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above. 71. The City of New York and its officials, employees and/or agents acting within the scope of their employment negligently supervised and trained the individual Defendants, who were unfit for the performance of their duties at the Park on November 15, 2011, thereby causing OWS to suffer injury, including monetary damages. Such injuries and damages were foreseeable. 72. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, this Court has pendant or supplemental jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.
DEMAND FOR.JURY 1JYAL
73. Plaintiffs demand trial by jury. PRAYER FOR REI·mF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request the following relief: 1. A declaratory judgment that Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under
the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article I, Sections 6, 8, and 12 of the New York State Constitution.

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 1 Filed 05/24/12 Page 16 of 16

2. Damages in the amount of at least approximately $47,000 against the City of New York and the individual defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest and costs.
3. Punitive damages in an amount of at least $1,000 against the individual defendants John Doe and Richard Roe et al. whose actions constituted outrageous conduct, were reckless, and showed a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiffs' rights as set forth above.
4. The cost ofthis action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
5. Any further and different relief that this Court deems appropriate.

Dated: New York, New York May 23, 2012

Yours, etc.

Sharon Sprayregen'" 260 Madison Avenue, 220d Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 455·0300 nsiegel@stellp.com hteitelbaum@stellp.com ssprayregen@ steUp.com
"'Not admitted in the Southern District of New York
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16

 
 Ò\tt Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 1 of 41

UNITED STATES DTSTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

tp

,'üry

OCCUPY WALL STREET, an unincorporated association

by and through Christine Crowther and Diego lbanez, as its
de facto Treasurers, AMANDA ROSE HENK, MICHELE LEE HARDESTY, FRANCES MERCANTI-ANTHONY,

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

JAIME TAYLOR, AN|ELTZABETH FAGIN, Plaintiffs, t2 cY 4129 (GBD)

-agatnst-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG In his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York RAYMOND KELLY, in his official capacity as Police Commissioner, JOHN DOHERTY, in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE and other presently unidentified officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New York in their ofhcial and individual capacities,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,

- against -
BROOKFIELD OFFICE PROPERTIES, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant'
X

Defendants, THE CITY OF NEV/ YORK ("City"), MICHAEL BLOOMBERG In his offrcial capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, RAYMOND KELLY, in his offrcial capacity as police Commissioner and JOHN DOHERTY, in his official capaciry as Sanitation
Commissioner (collectively "City defendants"), by their attorney, MICHAEL A' CARDOZO,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, as and for their complaint against the third-party defendant, allege, upon information and belief as follows:
1. On or about }y'ray 24,2012, plaintiffs, Occupy Wall Street, Amanda Rose
Henk, Michele Lee Hardesty, Frances Mercanti-Antonhy, Jaime Taylor and Elizabeth Fagin,

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 2 of 41
filed a complaint against City defendants, entitled Occupy Wall Street. et. al.. v. The Cit)'of New York. et. al.,12 CV 4129 (GBD) ("OWS Action").
2. This is a third-party action in which third-party plaintifß, the City, Mayor
Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly and Commissioner Doherty (collectively "the City"), seek indemnification from third-party defendant, Brookf,reld Offrce Properties ("Brookfield") for the
claims asserted in the OWS Action.
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367(a) in that the
claims of the City are so related to the claims within the original jurisdiction of this Court in the OWS Action as to form part of the same case or controversy'
4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(b) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within the district.
5. The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organizedunder the
laws of the State of New York.
6. Michael Bloomberg is the Mayor of the city of New York. 7. Raymond Kelly is the Commissioner of the New York City Police
Department. The New York City Police Department is an agency of the City of New York.
8. John Doherty is the Commissioner of the New York City Department of
Sanitation. The New York City Department of Sanitation is an agency of the City of New York.
g, Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. is a commercial real estate corporation
that owns, manages and develops property in cities in North America and Australia, including in
New york City. Brookfield maintains a principal place of business at Three World Financial
Center,200 Vesey Street, llth Floor, New York, New York 10281. Brookfield Office
Properties is the owner of the property known as Zuccotti Park, which encompasses the full-
- .z)--

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 3 of 41
block rectangular open space bounded by Broadway, Cedar Street, Church Street and Liberty Street. Zuccotti Park is a Privately Owned Public Space ("POPS") which was created pursuant to a Special Permit issued by the New York City Planning Commission in 1968.
10. Protest activities associated with what has come to be known as the
Occupy Wall Street movement first began in Zuccotti Park on or about September 17 , 2011 .
I 1. As a result of the Occupy Wall Street protest activities, during the time
between September 17,2011 and November 15,2011, conditions in Zuccotti Park gradually deteriorated to the point where they constituted a fire safety hazard and prevented Brookheld from being able to operate the Park in the manner in which it is required to do under the Park's
special permit.
12. On November 14,201I Brookfield wrote to Mayor Bloomberg expressing
its concern for the safety and heath of those occupying Zuccotti Park, as well as its inability to be in compliance with the New York City zoning laws that govern the operation of Zuccotti Park. In its letter, Brookfield also requested that the City and the New York City Police Department enforce the law at the Park and support Brookfield in its efforts to enforce the rules established for the use of the Park.
13. As a result of the situation described in Brookfield's letter and a finding
by the New York City Fire Department that conditions in Zuccotti Park constituted a fire safety hazard, at approximately l:00 a.m. in the morning on November 15, 2017, members of the New York City Police Department present at Zuccotti Park began instructing those occupying the
Park, via bullhorn and written notices, that: (l) they must immediately remove all property,
including tents, sleeping bags and tarps from theiP ark; (2) they must immediately leave the park
on a temporary basis so that it can be restored to its intended use; (3) they will be allowed to
-3-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 4 of 41

return to the Park when the work is complete; (a) if they fail to remove their property, it will be removed and transported to a Department of Sanitation garage at 57th Street where it can be recovered with pioper identification; and (5) if they fail to leave the park, or if they interfere with

efforts to remove property from the park, they will be subject to arrest.
14. Upon information and belief, at some time prior to 1:00 a.m. on November

15,2OI1 Brookfield employees or agents hired or otherwise engaged a private carting company

to provide trucks to assist with removal of belongings from Zuccotti Park'

.1 5

Upon information and belief on November I 5, 20 I I Brookfield employees

or agents assisted in loading property from Zuccotti Park into one or more trucks supplied by a

private carting company.
16. Upon information and belief on November 15, 2011 the property placed in

the truck(s) supplied by the private carting company was taken to, and disposed of in, a landfill'
17. City defendants played no role in, and did not authorize, the disposal of

any property from Zuccotti Park. Rather, City defendants instructed that all property removed from Zuccotti Park be transported to a Department of Sanitation garuge at 57th Street where it

would be available to be recovered by persons with proper identification.
18. On or about }/ray 24, Zdn, the plaintiffs in the OV/S Action filed a

complaint alleging that the removal and destruction of property from Zuccotti Park on November
15,20ll violated their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York'
lg. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein without admitting

the truth of any of the allegations therein, and without prejudice to the interests of the third-party

plaintiffs, is a true copy of the complaint in the OV/S Action.

-4-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 5 of 41
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the Answer to the complaint filed by the
City defendants.
21. City defendants/third-party plaintiffs deny that they have violated the
rights of, or are in any way liable to, the plaintiffs in the OWS Action. AS AND FOR A FIRS CAUSE OF'ACTION
22. If the plaintiffs in the OWS Action were caused any injury or had their
rights violated in any way, due to any conduct other than their own negligent or culpable
conduct, then such damages were due, in whole or in part, to Brookfield's actions or the actions of Brookfield's agents, servants and/or employees.
23. That by reason of the foregoing, in that event Brookfield will be liable to
the third-party plaintiffs for the full amount of recovery herein by the plaintiffs in the OWS
Action, or for that proportion thereof caused by the relative responsibility of Brookfield, and for all costs and expenses, no part of which has been paid to the City.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24. If the plaintiffs in the OV/S Action were caused to sustain the damages
alleged in the OWS Action through any negligence or want of due care other than the negligence or want of due care on the part of themselves, then said damages were sustained by reason of the negligence and want of due care by acts of commission or omission on the part of Brookfield, its
agents, servants and/or employees; and if any judgment is recovered herein by the OWS
plaintiffs against the third-party plaintiffs, then the third-party plaintiffs will be damaged thereby and Brookfield is or will be responsible therefore in whole or in part.
5

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 6 of 41

\ryHEREFORE, third-part plaintiffs, The City of New York and Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly and Commissioner Doherty, request judgment against

Brookf,reld:

(a) For the full amount, or such other amount as the Court deems just and

proper, of any judgment obtained against third-party plaintiffs;
(b) For the expenses of this action, costs and any other relief which this Court
deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York June25,2012

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Third-Party Plaintifß
100 Church Street, Room 5-175
New York, New York 10007
Email : sneufeld@law.nyc. gov
Tel: (212) 788-1035 Fax: (212)791-9714

By: Sheryl R. Assistant Corporation Counsel

- 6'-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 7 of 41
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 8 of 41

l ? L,/

,..'_\/

I
I

-\
(,

-.

l.

r1¿)r-)

AO 440 (Rcv. l2109) Srrmmons iu a Civil Action

JüNßF D

I-Jxlrnn Srnrns Dlsrrucr CouRr

for the

Southem District of New York

E

Please see attached

Plaintîtf Please seo attached

",t,8*"cv 4L2g

Delendanr
SIIMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (De/endanr\ nante ond addt'assl Please see attached

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 2l d¡ys after service
sestr¡vtc .- ars rhc LJnired Slntes ãr n Unitert
P. 12 (a)(Z) or (3) you rr:nrst ths Feclcraj Rulc* of Civil Pror:crfirre,
¡rc: wlrose ¡ramc ¡lnd ncldrcss Nomran Siegel Herbêrt Teitelbaum Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans, LLp 260 Medison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY '10016

ll{i:
2 of

You

lf you
also must

fail file

to respond, judgment by default yor¡r answer or motion with the

will be
court.

entercd

against

you

for

the

relief

demanded

in

the

complaint.

RUBY J. KRAJICK

CLERK

Date:

2 4 2011"

Signature of Clerk ot Deputy Clerk

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 9 of 41

IrlaÍr¡tiffs

aOrCclC'DTJiePgYo

WALI- S'IREEI', art unincorp<lratetl association by nncl thrr:ugh Chr.islinc
lhañcz, as its cle fac¿rr Tì'casurers, AMANDA RdsE ¡IENK;MICHELE

Crowthor. l_EE

HARDES'ÍY,ITRANCIIS MEIìCANT'I-AN'I"!-IONY, JAIMET YI.OR, unrlI-rLIZARDÍ"It

lìAcìlN

DefcndanLs ".[FÏIi CJ'Í'Y OF NEW YORK, MICI-IAEL BLOOMBERG, in his otficiul crptcity as Mayor ol' the City of Nerv York, RAYMOND KELLY, in his officiat capaciry as Poli'ce Cómrnì,ssioncr, JOI{N DOÍJERTY, in his official c:rpncity as S¿rnitatior¡ Comnrissióncr,.IOIIN I)OE ancl RICHARD ROE and ottter prcsently urtÍclcntifictl officiats, employees anct/or ngenrs of the City o1'New York in tlleir oflìcjal ancl incliviclualca¡racities

I)efendant Addresses
The City of New York clo The City of New York Law Department 100 Church Street New York, Ì{Y 10007
Mayor Michael R, Bloomberg The City of New Yo¡k Office of the Mayor New York, NY 10007
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly New York Police Departrnent One Police Plaza Now York, NY 10038-1403
Sanitation Commissioner .Iohn Doherty NYC Department of Sanitation Central Correspondence Unit 346 Broadway, 1Oth Floor
New York, NY 10013

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 10 of 41

**''JllD$ ilïÌi¡r utr sheet. rnrriårrns rhe crvrr dockst

2 I
..,,, Hi'r*Írîï,#"',J* 2 4 z0lz " rß clork of cÛurl loi lh. purpÛ'. 14ÅÍ

PLAINTIFFS occupy Wall Strêet et al.

DEFENDANTS The Clty of New York et al

ATTORNEYS (FIßM NAME, ADDRESS. AND TELEFHONE NUMBER Si60el Tê¡lolbaum & Evans, LLP, 260 Madlson Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016
21 2-45S0300

AI-TORNEVS (tF KNOWN) Norman Élegel, Herbert Teltolbaum, Sheron Sprayregen

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE IJ.s, CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YoU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT oF cAUsE) (DO NOT CrTE JURtSDICT|ONAL STATUTES UNLESS DTVERSIT4

Violatlon of the 4th, 14th and 1 st Amendmenls to th€ US Constitution, 42 U.S.C, 1983, and the constitutlon and laws of NY State

Has thls or a slmller cåse bê6n provlouÊly fìled in SDNY al any tlmo? NÕ

f-l Yes

Judqo Previouslv Asslgned

n I ! I lf yss, was this csse Vô|, lnvol. Dtsmissed, tlo Ves

lf ps, glve date

ls lxrs r¡ n¡fERNArôNAl- AFËrrRAnoN cÀsE? xo D(

Yes fl

(PLACE AN lxl lN oNE Box oNLV
TORfS

NATURE OF SUIT

._._

& Case No.

ACTIôIIS UNDER 6TATUIE!

CôNTRACT

fìr10
f )r20 | ì130 I 1140 [ | 'r50

INSURÀNCE MARINE MILLER ACT NEGOTIABLE INsTRUMENI
RÊCOVERY Of O\GRPAYMENT ù

ÉNFORCEMENT

| |

1161 1152

OF JUDGMENT
MÉDICARE ACf
RECOVÊRY OF
DEFÀULTEI)

STUOÉNf LOANS (EXCL VETERANS)

I 1153

RÊCOVERY OF OVËRÞAVMENT

OF VETERAN'S

f t160

BENEFIfS sfocKtloLoERs
sulr9

f l1s0 IIl05

OTHER CôNTRACI
coNfRACt

PRODUCT I IAßII-ITY
I I l0B FRÀl.lcFlsE

REAT ÞROfERW

( ) 21,0
I l22o I l23o f l24o | 1245 I l2oo

r.^ND CôNDEMNAlIôN
FOREGlÕ8URÈ R€NÌ tËAgE & EIE¿TMENT IORIS TO LANO TORT PRODUCT
L¡ABILITY ÀLL OfHER REAL PROPERTY

FERsOI¡AL INJURY

PÊRITONAL INJURY

FORFEffI'lRE/PEI{ÀLTY

BANKRUPfCY

I l¡10 t 1315 I ls20 ( )330

I t

l3{0 l3¡5

[ ì350 I l35s

AAELL^SMFISRIrE|ML3AAARPAAOLPBRUBPNLELINrTITLLE-D,ORNAIrLPTErIAYNEByVRERLEELoR',DSU' C[|PIIfbIE11131IdR336333a66OS77268N01oAPMPpUÀINLEREËJSÀRÞUoRPBSDRSBMoVEURONAICASPNLOLLìIAIPROLÏÞLTRVlÀISONEANSPJCDRtUJELÍR|UtUICRTYyYEÔ-gROYT[[[IfI[I¡l|¡1¡|11Iôô688A66612215368L0060000ô

AGR|CULIURE OÍHÊR FOoo & ÞRIJG ÞRl"'è R€LATEO
SÉIZUREOF PROPERIY
21 USC881 LIOUÔR LÂWS RR & TRUCK AIRLINË RÉOS OCCUPATIoNÀL GAFEry/HEALIH orHER

f l{22 APPEAL

28 USC !5E

[

1423

WTÍHDRAWÀr
20 usc 157

ÞROPERfY RIOHT9
I l o2o ooPhtoHls I | 0s0 PATENÍ [ ]E4o TR^OEMÀRK

sOCIAL õECURfIY

( l3ô0

oINfHJEURRPEVRSoNAL

|

1385

PRoPERTVOAMAoE PROOUCT LIÀ6ILITY

LASOR

| 1861 HÁ(r3s6f)

f )710 FAIRLAßOR
SÎANOARDS ACT

I lorlz BLAoKLUNG(023)

Ill618r6,r3

D|WC/DIWW (.05(0))
ssro'ilrLÉxvr

| 1720 rÀRoR/MGMÍ

f I Bos RSI (405(0))

PRIBONER FETITIONS

RELATIONS

I )nfo MoTroN$lo

( I 730 LABOR/MGMr
RÈPORIING A

FEOÊRAL IAX SUfTs

ACIIOII¡¡ UNDEh 3TÀ1TIÍES

ctvtL RloHTs

|{41 VÒT|Nô

I| .¿I4¡2¡

EMPLOYMENT
xoustNor

I I I

ì ß10 1I 554350

V2HDMoAAAlCE,BNJAEDsATAcAESMT2USCH?ESoNJP&TR5EEONPTNêUÊHAESRLT(f[ |)IY77?40e00r

OISCLOSURE ACT
LoERMIAIHPTIEILWIRGRAYIEAAILtABINIBOOOCRNRACT

f I

I 070 IETI

T/Ù(ES (U.S. Pl0lnllft
oôLndtrnl) IRS.THIRDPARÍY 20 USc 7600

ot

SECURITY ACT

ACCOMMODATiONS

ll¡MtoRAftou

la¡l{ WÊLFARE

| 4.rs

WITH

f J.18

PRÉO}¡ER CML RIOHTS

[ I

) I

6s0 555

clvtL RrcHfs PRIôÕN coNfrlTroN

[ | 482 NATURALTZ IToN

¡ð3 APPLICÀTION

I I

HASEAS CoRPUS-

¡65 ALIEN OETAINÊE

I I

OT¡{ER tMMteRATloN

I

ACTIONs

(Non-Pd!oñôr)

OTHËR 6TATUÍES

( 1400 sl^rE

RÊAPPORIIONMENf

I f

lì4{irlo0

ANîTRUST 9ANXS À bÀNKING

t l¡50 coMMËRcE

I li6ô DËPôRTATToN

I I 4?O RÀCKETEER INFLIJ-

ENCED Å CORRUP']

ORCIANIZAÎON ACI (Rlcol

I l1o0 | ì180 I 1810 I t0s0
COMMÔDÍIESI

EXCHANOE
( ì876 CUSTOMÊR
CHALLENGE '12 usc 3{10 I I 000 oTHÉR sTAfufoRY ACTIONS

I691 ÀGRICULTUR LÀCTS lÀ92 EcoNoMlc
sfABlLtlATtoN ACI

¡ 893 ENVIRONM€NTAL

MATTÉRS

|

804

ÉñERGY ALLOCATION

Àôf

I I 8ss FREEoOM OF
INFORMATION ÀCT

I l90o APPE^LoFFEE
DETERMINAIIOI.I

UNOER EOU,\L

AÔCE3S TO JUSTICE
f I 050 coNgtlTUTtoNALtTV
OT EÍA'TE SIATUTES

thgak ¡l dononded..lJ Çompla¡nt:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.C,P.23

DEMAND -ç

OTHËR*--

D Chock YËS onlv lf demanded in cotnolehtl JURY DEMAÑO: E YES ¡¡O

DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATEO TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.? IF SO. STATEi

JUDGE

OOCKET NUMBER--

NOTE; Plaasa submlt at lhÉ tims of fillng an explanatlon of why cases are doemed related.

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 11 of 41

(PIACE AN x lN ONE aox ONLY

E 1 oPrmigcinèaotdlng I

2 Remowct trcm
Sble Cout
a. plnlo. rupru.ona.d "rf

n b, Atlorrrono porly 13 pro sa,

(PLAÇÈ AN X IN ONE tsOX TJNLY)
fl | 1 u.s. pLATNnFF 2 u,s. DEFENDANT

3 Remended [ from

ORIGIN
4 Retnsteted or
R€opehsd

^CpopuerltlÊte

! 5 t(rSapnâsdtreynDedircrotmricDl)6

BASIS OF JURISDfCTION
E 3 reoen¡louEsroN !4 ovensrv (U,S, NOT A PARTY)

Mutridistrtct Llllgalion

f| 7 Appeal lo Dlslrlct Judge trom MsgislrEta Jud0Ê Judqment

tF DtvERSlÍYt INDICATE
CITIZENSHIP BELOW, (28 USC 1s22,1141)

clTrzENSHlP OF pRtNCtpAL PARTTES (FOR D|VERStTy CASES ONLy)

(Place en [Xl in one box for Plalnllff and one box for Defendant)

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

PTF OEF

CITIzEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN COUMfRY

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE

22

INcoRFORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IÑAHIS 9TATE

PTF OEF 3
4 4

INCORPORATED snd PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
FOREIGN NATION

PIF DEF

5

5

IJ

PLAINTIFF(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTY(IES)
Please see attached

ÞEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND COUNTy0ES)
Please see attached

DEFENDANT(S) ADDRESS UNKNOWN REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT. AT THIS TIME, IHAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE OILIGENCE. TO ASCERTAIN THE
RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THË FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:
John Doe, Richard Roe and others presently unknown to Plaintiffs

TO: checkone: THIS ACTION SHoULD BE ASSIGNED n WHITE PLAINS I lURUURffn¡¡ (DO NOT check elthor box lf thla a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT.)

DATÉ RECEIPT #

ADI\,IITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT

3 NO
YES (DATE ADMtrrEo rr¡o.

vr.l99!l

Anornêy BarCoda# NS tì850

Magistrate Judge is to be designated by the Clerk of

Magistrate Judge
by Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court

Deputy Clerk, DATED

is so Deslgnated.

UN|TED STATES D|STRICT COURT (NEW YORK SOUTHERN)

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 12 of 41
Plaintiff Addresses
Occupy Wall Street, by and through Christine Crowther and Diego IbaÈez, as Ïts de lacto
Treasurers 11BA l.-ulton St, Suite 205
New York, NY 10038
Amanda Rose Henk DePauw Unìversity (IDU) Roy O. West
1l East l.arabee'Strcet
Greencastle,IN
Michele lre Hardesty
207 Starr St. #2-1,
Brooklyn, NY 11237
Frances Mercanti-Anthony 22427st St Apt 2 Brooklyn, NY 11232
Jaime Taylot 777 Easten Parkway, Apt2 Brooklyn tI273
Elizabeth Fagin 574 Mrh Street #4D Brooklyn,l.IY 11220
Defendant Add{esses
The City of New York clo The City of New York Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg The City of New Yo¡k Office of the Mayor New York, NY 10007
Police Commissíoner Raymond Kelly New York Police Department One Police Plaza

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 13 of 41
New York, NY 10038-1403
Sanitation Commissioner John Doherty NYC Department of Sanitation Central Correspondence Unit 346 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 14 of 41

Àotq-ùaVto

Jt 00[ 0riltEt $
UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTTIERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1 ?w

41 2e

OCCUPY WALL STREE-I , an unincorporated assoclation by and tbrough ChrístÍne Crowther and Dicgo lbarlez, as its de facfo Treasursrs, AIvÍANIJA ROSB FIENII MICTfrLE I^EE I{ARDBSTY, FRAI.¡CES MERCÆqTI.A}ITHONY, JAIME TAYI-OR, and ELIZABETH FAGIN

COMPLAINT 12 Clv. No.
JI,'RY TRIAL DEMANDEI)

PlåÍntifft,

-against-
rTß cmY oF NEW YORIç MTCTIAEL
BI-OOMBERG, tun his oftrcíal capacity æ Mayor of the City of New Yo¡k, RAYMOND KEL.LY, in his ofñcial capacity as Polico CourmissÍoncr, JOHN DOHERTY, ¡n his ofñcial capacíty as Sadtåtion Com'¡rÍssioner, JOIIN DOË and RICÍIARD ROE and othorprorcntly unidendfred ofñ.pirls, cmployecs and/oragcnls of the
City of New York in tbeir ofEcial and irdh¡idual
capacities

ECF

Ëi\\j 2 410i2

Defendants.
x
Ptehtitrs occuPY WALL STREET (,OWS') by and through Christine Croruthcr and Dicgo lbaücz, as its de facúo treasurers, AMAI{DA ROSB HENK MICHELE I trB I!{RDESTY, FRAT{CES MERCANTI.ANTTIONY, JAIME TAYT,OR s¡d ELIZABETH FAGIN, by their attorncys, SIEGELIIEITELBALJM & EvAlls, Ll,P, as and for their
COMPLAINT against Defeuda¡rt* allegc the following: FRELFffi.{ARy .SrATEnflpNT
1. This is a declaratory judgment and civil righhs action to vindicatc
Plaintiffs' ríghts undcr thc Fi¡sÇ Fourth and For¡rte¿nth Amcndments to tho Constitr¡tiou of the

I

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 15 of 41
United States, 42N.5.C. $ 1983, aud the Constih¡tion and laws of the Statc of New York. Plai¡tiffs were deprived of theír federal and statc constitutional and New Yo¡k State common law rights when police officers of the New York Police Departuient (.NYPD") and eurployees of
the New York Cþ Deparüneut of Sanit¿tion C'DSNï) (together "City Departments"), acting
pl¡¡$ant to a policy and on the authority of New York Cíty Mayor Michael Bloomberg and under the di¡cction of Commissioners Raymond IGlly and John Doherty, conducted a surprisc night time raid of Zuccotti Park, a.k.a. "Líbetty pa¡k" (the.,park').
2. As part of the raid, the City Deparûoents sêized and retained possesion of
personal propcrty belouging !o O\ilS, including at least approximately 3,600 books from OtÅ/S's People's Library ('People's Librrary" or tho "Library'), as well as va¡ious tibrary fumishinp, computers, aud other electronic cquipme,nt ("Library fumishinge and cquipmenf). Only 1,003 of the at least approximately 3,600 books that were seizcd were recovered; morcover, of the rocove¡ed books, ?Ãlwerc so damaged while iu the posscssion of the City of New York that they were madc unusable. lüus, at least approximateLy 2,798 books rryer€ Devor retumed or were damagod and made unutablc. Almost all of the Library furnishiugs and equipment that wore seized by Defendants wcre not returned or returned in an unusablc condition. To this day, OWS has not been lold by thc City of New York what bappenod to tle missing books and Library ñunishinp ald equipment. Upou i¡formation and belief, the missing books were dest¡oyed æ part of the raid. Upon information and beliet the raid was authorized by Mayor Bloornberg and exeo¡têd by Johu Doe snd Richud Roe a¡d othe¡s presently unknown t0 Plåintitrs ('John Doe and Richard Roe ¿t ø1.") in their capacity as offidals, cmployoes and /or agetrts of the City Deparunents, except for thc conducl related to Plaintifß' request for pruitive damagss aE morc particrlarly set forth below.
2

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 16 of 41

Jr.rRrsprcTroN At{p }æNUE
3. This action íe brought pnrsuant to 42 U.S.C $$ 1983 and 1988, and tbe

First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendmeuts to the Constitution of the United States. This Cou¡

has jurÍsdiction of the actiou pursuant to 28 U,S.C. ü$ 1331, 1343(a[3), and úa3(a)(a) as this is a civil actiou arisi¡tg under the Constitution of the United States a¡d the laws of the United

States. This Court has jurisdiction to dcclare the rigbts of the partics and to gant all furthcr

relief deemed necessary and propcr pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 2201 and 22tr2. This Court has jurisdiction over the supplemental claims arising under New York State law pursuant to 28

U.S.c. g 1367(a).
4.

Venue is propu for the United Stated Distric.t Coi¡f for the Soutbem

Distrist of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C $ 1391 (a), O), aud (c) because the claims arose in this dÍstria.

PARTTES
5. Plaintiff OCCUPY \ryALL STREET is an uirincorporated assocíation. It

brings this actlon by and throush Christine Crowthcr and Diego lbaüez, as ita de facÍo hea$rrêil¡, Pcrsons ¡ssoci¡ted with OWS aome Aom differcnt backgrounds, including elderly and young people, those with oollege and graduate degrecs a¡d thosc without formal sç[ssling, and those
with jobs and thosc who were laid otra¡d ue othcrwisc uneqloyed, Tbesc people come ûom

all racial and ethnic groupe and many rcligious, including Christianity, Judalsm and Islan¡.
6, A cenbal tenet of OWS is that tho gowing income ínequality ín the

Unitcd States is unjust, nruæePtable, ård nru$t be rcctificd. OWS has petitioncd the government

to red¡ess this grÍevance through demonstrat¡oÉ itr New York City and throughout the county.

3

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 17 of 41

7. Plaintiffs MICIIEI¡ LEE HARDESTY, FRANCTES MERCAI.¡TI-

AIITHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, and ELtrZABETH FAGIN arc and werc at all times relevant

resid€trts of the City of New York. Each is associated with OWS and the Library Wortci,rg

Group, and volunteeied at the People's Library.

I'

Plahtitr AS,ÍANDA ROSE HENK is a resident of l¡diana. PlaintiffHenk

travelled to New York City and participated in thÊ OWS demonetration ât the Park She is

associated with OV/S and thc Ubrary Working Group, and volunteered at the People's Library.
9. Defcudant CITY OF NEW YORK is a muuicipal entity created and

authorizcd undcr the laws of thc State of Nsw York. It is authorized by law to maintain policc

ald sadtation deparhcuts, whích ad as ib agents in the areas of law enforccmcut and

saoitatioa, respectively.
10. Døfc¡dant MICHAELBITOOMBERG is thc Mayorof thc City of New

York. The Mayor is the chicf cxccutive otficer of New York City. As such, hc ls responsible for

the actions and policies of the NÏPD and SDN[, and the effegtivencgs and inægrity of the

City's govcnrmont opcratÍon. Pr¡rsr¡ant to thc New York City C1uter, he must est¿blish and

maintain such policies and proædures as arc lrêcessary and aprpropriate to accomptish this

responsibillty. He is sued in his ofÉcial capacity.
11. Defeudant RAYMOND KELLY is the NYPD'g Commíssionsr. He is

appoinûed by thc Mayor and is tbc chicf oxçcutive ofñcer of the N[PD. Among other duties,

Commissioncr Kelly is responsiblo for the actions and policlcs of the NnD, and for the

execiltion of all the laws aud thc ruIes and rogulations of thc Stato, the City and the tIl?D. He is

zucd Ín his ofñcial capacity.

4

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 18 of 41
72. Defenda¡t JOHN DOHERTY is tbe New York City Sanitation
Conmissioncr. He is appointed by the Mayor and is the head of the DSNy. Among other duties, Coûmissioner Doherty is responsible for the functions and operations of the City relating to thc cleanliness of the streôts and the disposal of waste, and for the execution of all laws, nrles, and rcgulatíons pertaíning to the DSNY. He is sued in his ofñcial capacity.
13, Defendants JOHN DOE aud RICHARD ROB e¡ al., whose identitiæ ue
prcsently ¡nkn6s¡¡ to Plaintiffs, üe and werc at aU times ofHcials, employees and/or agilt6 of the City Deparhents. They a¡e sued in their ofñcial capacities and, wirh respect to tbe cl¿im for punitíve damagês, in their individual capacíties.
74. Except a¡ ûo thc actiong that form the basis for the cl¡im for puoitive
damages as to JOHN DOB and RICHARD ROE er ¿1., at all times relevaut, tbc indívidual defendants JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE er al. wercacting u¡der color of stato law in the coun¡e and scopc of their dudes aud functions as officiats, employees aDd/or agents of the City
Deparhents, and otherwise performed and cngaged i¡r coudust incíde¡t¡I to the performance of their lawt¡l functions in the course of tbcir duties.
STAIEIVÍENT OFFACTS Bacltsound
15' On September 17,?ßL7, âs part of tbei¡ effort to call attention to tüei¡
c&use, associates of OWS establishcd ¡u encånpment in thc Park, a privately owrcd public space in Manlutt¿n's Financial Dishict that is boundcd by Tri"ity Place, Liberty Steet, Broadway, aod Cedar Street. Soon afrerwa¡ds, OWS bcgan recelving donations of bools. On or about September 27 or 2Í3, the General Assombly, OWS's goveming body, establíshed the Library Working Group to oversee the organization, developmenÇ and promotion of wh¿t has come to be called tbe People's Library.
5

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 19 of 41

16. Prior to the proteste¡s' eviction Êom the Park on November 15, 2011,

which is described below, the People's Library was locåted i¡ the northeast comer of tbe park.

The books were naint¿ined on metal shelves and in plastic bins, and the Library,s opcration wæ

oven¡een by tained librariatrs.
L7, By November 15, over 5,500 books had been donated to the People,s

Library, and on the night of the raid at least approximately 3,600 books were in the LÍbrary. Tte

books were donated by individuals, publishers, and authors, some of whom autographcd their

books. The librarians catalogued all incoming donations. To indicate that a book belonged to

OWS, the librarians wrote or ståmped "Occupy Wall SheetLib'rary" or "O'WSL" somewherc on each of the donaæd books. The Library containcd books on a widc range of subjects, including

cconomics, politics, aud histodes of rcsÍstance. It also çs¡tqinsd clæsícs such as works by

V/illiam Shakespeare and Fyodor Dostoevsky, and autobiographies of notable individuals, such

as the autobiography of Andrew Camcgie and the Mayor's own autobiography, Bloomberg on

Bloomberg.

18' The Líbraty accepted both new and r¡sed books. Upon informatio¡ and

bclief, all books were in sufflcieotly good condition that they wore roadable, wíth the binding

undisturbed and pages intact.
19. The Libraty offered its books to both persons associated wíth OWS and

thc gcneral public. Prior to the events of Novembcr 15, which are described betow, the Library

scrved as a forum for learning, the cornmudcation and excbangc of ideas, aud oxpressive rctivity

more gcnerally.

6

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 20 of 41

ZO. On November 15,2011, at approximatcly 1a.m., the NY?D anived at the

Pa¡k and began enforcing thc City's policy by announcing \¡/ith a bullhorn and r¡¡ritten flícrs that

OWS protesters occupying the Park mwt imnediatcly remove all property from the Puk and

leave the Pa¡k on a temporary basis so that it could be cleaned. O\ilS protcstcrs were told they

would be allowed to retum whcn this work was complete. The NYPD frrrthcr announced that

property OWS protesters falled to remo¡e would be removed by the City Dcparnneuts and
transported to a DSlff garagc on 5?û St¡e¿t, where, wíth proper idontification" it could be

recovered.

2L, OWS protestcrs were wa¡aed that those who failed to leave the Park or

interfered with efforts to rcmove property from the Park would be subject ùo a¡rest.
22. Approximately forty five mi¡utcs later, at approximaæly 1:45 a.m.,I.IYPD

offrcors moved througb the Park clearing protcstcrs. DSlilY workcn followed, taking possession

of all belonginp that werc lefibchind. Upon information and belicf, DSNY workots filled 26

DSI{Y trucks wÍth proprty thoy removcd ftom the Park.
23. When the lffPD announced that all prcpcrty mustbe removed from the
Puþ an OWS protesteÍ erd Library volunteer attenrpted !o remove books ûom the Pcople's

Library. After he ca¡ried atr ar:m full of books out of the Pa¡f,, be attemptod to rehrrn to the Pæk

to renove additional books. Howevcr, police officcrs wcrc barricading the Park and would not pcrmit him to retr¡m to contiuuc remorrirtg books.
2/[. Upon information and belicf, Mayor Bloombcrg autho¡ized and assumed

ul{mato responsibility for the raid.

7

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 21 of 41
25. Prior to thc raid on November 15, no notice was given to OWS or its
associate's that all tbe Library books and Library furnishinp and equipment would have to be removed from the Park
26. Prior to seÍzing thc books and Ubrary firrnishings and equipment,
Defendants did not provide a hearíng or any other pre-deprivation procedure.
27. Upou informatiou and belief, no omergency situation existed at the Pa¡k at
or ¿bout 1 a.m. on Novembe¡ 15.
A, The prescncc of the books in the Park on Novcmber 15 did Dot create an
emefgency condition that required the immediate removal of tbe books.
2;9. Príor to Novomber 15, IIIYPD officcrs we¡e continually monitoring thc
condition of the ParÇ urd hâd tltc opportunity to observe thc Pcople's Library. Upon irfornation and bcticf, members of thc l{lfPD $/ere aware thal the LÍbrary contaÍned many shelves and boxes of books. The NYPD lnew or should have known thaÇ under thc circt¡mstances on the nigtt of the raid, it would not be possiblc to remove such a targe quantity of books and Library fu¡nishing¡ and cquipment wtthin the time alJott¿d by thc Defc¡da¡ts.
30, On Novcmbet 16,?Ãtt,the day afrcr tbo raid, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Fagin
and Michele Lee Hardesty, botb associatêd w¡th OWS ard voluutcers at tlæ People's Library, and tÌ¡¡ee othes went to the l\¡est s?lh Stcot DSIIY Garage to rctric\re the books that wpre
seized. They gavc DSÌSY roprescntatives I oomputer printout lÍsting the Library'sþoks. They
ret¡íeved some of the items tt¡at wcrc OWS's propcrty and marked as such. Represcntatives from thc DSI{Y and the Mayor's Office told thom to return on Friday, November 18, to rehieve the additional books and Libtary frlnishings and equip'ment. On Friday November 18, Plaintiffs
I

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 22 of 41
F"lizabcth Fagn and Michele I¡e llardesty a-ud ono other individual retumed to the West 57h
DSNIY Garage to retrieve the additionar books and Library furníshings and equipment.
31. Of the at least approximatcly 3,600 books tbat were seized on Novcmber
1'5' only L,003 were recovcred. Moreover, 2Ol of tbc recovered book¡ were so damaged that tbey were unusable. Thus, at loast approximately 21798 books wero nevor returnod or were danragcd aud madc unusable. Plahtifü esrimatê the value of the approximately 2,79E missing books to be at lea!¡t approximately $43,000.
32- Upon informatiou and belief, in the coursc of conducting tbe Novcmber 15
¡aid, officials, employees aud/or agents of the City Deparhonts desuoyed many of the books
that werc soizod in the raid. Iohn Doc and Richard Roe el cl's actions in desrroying, facilítating
the dc.struction, or othenvisc allowing the dcstruction of OWS's books constitutcd outragcous
conducÇ was ¡eckless and showed a callous indifference to and willful disregard of Plaintiffs' fedoral and state probcted rights.
33, In additíon to tbo books, on November 15, Defendants seized the Library
furnishings and equipmenÇ which consisted of 6 cornputas, archival rnaterial, a'\Miñ" devicg VI melal shelvçs and numerous plastic bíns that had coutained Library. books, 3 sets of wooden drawers, approximately E chairs aod a large tcnt that houscd the Library. Most of these furnishiugp and equÌpment were not retu¡ned or retuúcd in a usablc condition. Plaintifft estimato thc value of tùe Library furnishinp and equipment to bc at least approximately $4,000.
34. As a result of Dofonda¡ts' conducl, the Ubrary lost a suhtântial part of its
collcstion and was rendcrcd nou-fr¡¡ctÍonal.
35' Dofendauts failed to t¡aín and supervise tboir officials, employees and
agents, íncluding lohn Doe and Richard Roe a al.,so as to prcvent the scizu¡e and dcstruction of
I

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 23 of 41
Plaintíffs' prcP€frY, which resulted in the violatÍon of the First, Fourth and Fourtceoth Amendments to the Co¡stitution of the United Ststßs arrd 42U,S.C, $ 1983, and the Con¡titution and laws of Ncw York State.
36' Defendents' failure to train and superrrisc amonnts to deliberate
indifference to the rights of persons with whom Defendaxb came into contac{, including Plainrifß.
37. Tte deficiency in the training and supervision of Defendants Joh¡ Doe
and Richard Roe ø ¿/. was an actual c¿use of the deprivatíon of Plaintiffs' rights and injuries.
38. On February 9,2012, a notice of claim was æffed on the Comptollerof
the Ctty of New York, At least 30 days bave elapsed si¡cc servica of such notÍce, and adjustmcnt and/or payüent ha¡ been neglec{od and/or rEfr¡sed.
39. In takiry the actions dcscribed abovc, thc Defendants were acting under
color of statc law æ afo¡esaid. TIRSTçT"AIM TìOBRELIEF
(VIOI,ATION OX'THE FOURTH AIVÍETYDIVTENT I1O TTIE CONSTrIUTION OF THE
LTII|ITED STATES)
40. Plaintifß rcpe¿t and rcnllege each and every allegation sct forth above. 47. Defendants' seia¡re of OWS's Lib'rarybooks and Library furrrishings and
cquipnent constitutcs an rurËasoDablc s¿izure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 42U.S.C. $ 1983. These actions werc taken pursurnt to a policy, and the decision to t¡ke such actions was madc by high ranking officials of the City of New York.
42, Defendants' destruction and failwe to r€tum orrÊtum in a usable
conditiou OWS's seizcd Ubrary booke and Library ftrnishhs and equipment constiû¡tes an
10

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 24 of 41
ufferu¡onable sciztrre in vÍolation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a;r.d' 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, These actions were t¿ken pursuaut to a policy, and the decision to take such actions was made by high ranking offi.cials of thc city of New york.
sEcû{t-D.cï.A[¡yiJ-gRRELIEF (VIOI,ATÍON OF'FOURTEENTII AÀ{EIìÍDMENT TO TTIE CONSÎITUTION OF TIIE
T]NITED STATEÐ
43, Plaintiffs repeat and roallege each and evcry allegation set forth above. 4. Plai¡titrs have a prcp€rly right in the Library bmks and Library
fu rníshiup aud equipanent.
45. Dcfendants' aptions in (Í) failing to provide a hearing or any other pre-
deprivation procedure prior to scizing the Library books and Libruy frrrnishings and equipment and/o¡ (ii) perrritting OWS's associates an unreasoüably short deadlinc to vacate the Park with all OlüS's posscssions deprived OIVS of its propefiy without due proccss of law in violation of the Fouræenth Aneudment to the Constitution of the United States and42U.S,C, $ 1983. These
actions wcre ta¡len pursuant ûo a policy, a¡d the decision to take zuch actions was nade by hiÉ
rauHlg ofñcials of the City of New York.
46. Additionally, Defendants' action¡ ln failing to retum all of OWS's Library
books and Library furnishinp and equipmetrt, or in failing to returD the boots and Library furnishinp aud equipment in a usable conditíon dcprlved Plaintitrs of theh property wirhout due process of law iu violation of Fourteetth Amendments to the Coustítution of the United States
oad 42 U.S.C. $ 1983.
11

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 25 of 41

THIRD CI.AIM ['OR RELIEF (VIOLATION OF TEE FTRST AMENI'MENT TO TIIE CONSTITUTTON OFTHE
UMTED STAIES)

'47

Plâintifft repeat and reallcge each and every allegation set forth above.

4{ì. In seízing dcstroying and/o¡ not returning the Library,s books, or not

retunring the books ln a usable condition, Defendants destoyed OWS's fomm for learuing and

the exchnnge of idcas, aud otherwiu€ interfered with the OWS's assooiatês' abiliry to obtain thc

books.

49. The Library præented no drnger to thc Defendants or to the public that

necessitated the rcmoval and tbcn destruction and/o¡ failure to retum the books, o¡ failurc to

retum thc books in a usable condition. Defendants did not use the requisite ca¡e in dismantling

the Library, taking ¡nsscssiou of the Library's books, or in ensuring theû return. Lç66¡rtingly,

Defendants actcd with rccklqçs a¡d callous indiffercnce to Plai¡tiffs' rights turder the Fi¡st

A.mendmcnt to the Constitution of the United States and 42U.S,C. $ 19g9.

FOVRrEflrrArIt4 FoR REIIEF

(TNATTDQUAIE SUPERVTSTON AI{D TRATNTNG)
50. Plaintiß rePoôt and reallege each and every allegation sct fortb above. 51. Defendants failed to train and supenrise thcir ofñcials, employecs and

sgents, including lobn Doe and Ric.hard Roe ef al., so as to pr€vent lhe seizure and destrudion of

Plaintiffs' ProPeÉI, whish resultcd i¡ the violation of thc Firsl Fourth aud Fourteeuth

Amcndments to the Constitution of the Unlæd States and42U.S.C. $ 1993,
52, Defendsuts' failue to train and superrrise amounts to deliberato

indÍffe¡ence to the rights of persons wíth whom Defendants came into coutac! including

Plai!tift.

12

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 26 of 41
53. The deficieDcy in t[e f¡¡ining and supcrvision of Defendants John Doe
and Richard Roe ø ¿1. was ax ectual cause of tlc constltutional deprivations and injuries suffered
by Plaintifrs.
FII'ITI CI"AIM FOR REIJEF (VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I' SECTION E Or'THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTI0N)
54. PlaÍntifß rePeat and reallege eacb ¡ud every allegation sot forth above. 55. Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights under A¡ticlc I, Seotion 8 of the
New York State Constitution.
sIIüq CLAI}Í FORRETIEF
(VIOI"ATION OF ARTICLE 1, SEenON 12 OF IIIE NEl{l YORK CONSTTIIITIOI$
56. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegatiou set forth above57. Dc'fendants violated Plaintiffs' rights rurder A¡ticle l, Section 12 of the
New Yo¡k State ConstÍtution.
sE\TNrF CT,AIM FOR RELmF (VIOLATION OE'ARIICLE I' SECTION 6 OF THE NHIV YORK CONSTITIJTION)
58. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege cach and every allcgation set forth above. 59. Defendants violated Plaintiffs' dghts under Article l, Section 6 of the
New York Statc Constitution.
E[ÊHTrrJ]rraIIu FioR RELIET (c0t{vERs¡IoN)
60. Plaintitrs repeat and reallege each and every allegation sct forth abovc. 6'l'. The Plaintiffs h¿ve title and/o¡ the right to possess OWS's Library books
and Líbrary fu¡¡ishings and equip'ment. Defendads' actions in sei'ing the books and tibrary furnishingr and equipmeut and/o¡ failiug to return the books and Library 1¡afuhingx and
13

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 27 of 41

equiPmeût or faili:rg to return them in a usable condition when plaintifü requestcd their retum on Novcmber 16 and 78,zûtlconstitutss conversion. Plaintiffs are danaged as a result of Defendants' actions.
62' Pursua¡t to 28 U.S.C. $1367, this Cou¡t has pendant or zupplemontal
jurisdíctíon to beü and adjudicate such claims.

NINIII CI"AIM FOR RELIEF

(REPLEVTN)

63' 64.

Plaintiffs repeat aud reallcge each and cvery allegatiou set forrh above, The Plaintiffn have title and/or the rigt¡t to possess OWS's Library books

and Library fumishings and equipmont. Defenda¡ts' actions in scizing thc books arrd Library

furnishings and cquipment, and/or failÍngto returq them or hiling to return tbcm in a usable

conditlon when Plaintiffs rcquested their return on November 16 a¡d 18,2011 is the basis for replevin relief,

65. R¡rsuant to 28 U.S.C. $1367, this Court ha, p"n¿*t or supplemental
jurisdiction to hea¡ and adjudicate such claims.

ÏENTH CIIUM FORRDLMI'

(NEcLrcuYcE)

66. 67.

Plaiutiffs repeat and reallegc each and cvery allegation ser fo¡1h abovc, The damap, destruction and/or failure to retu¡n Plahtiffs' Library books

and Library furnishin$¡ and cquipmetrt was forseeable and proximately caused by tbe

negllgence, gross ncgligenco, carelessnelis and/or negligent omissions of Defeuda¡ts or their

officials, enployees and/o¡ agpûts,

l4

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 28 of 41

68. As a ¡esult of the negligense, gross negligencc, carelessness and/or
neglígent omissions of Defeodants, thefu officials, employees and/or agpnts, plaintifß have sustained monotary damages.
69. Pu¡suant to 28 U.S,C. $13ó7, this Court has pendant or supplemental
jurisdictiou to hear and adudicate such claims.

EI,E- VENTH CI,AIM F'OB RELIEF

(NEGIJGENT SUPERVISION AIìD TRAIMNG)

70' 71.

Plaintifß repeat and rcallege cach and every alleption sct forth ahve. The City of New York and íts ofñcials, employees and/o¡ ag€trts acting

E'ithin thc scopc of thci¡ employment ncgligently supcrviscd and t¡ained thc individuat

Dcfendants, who were uufit for the performaac€ of thei¡ duties at the Pa¡k on Novcmber 15,
?ntt' thereby causing OWS to suffcr injury, incduding moûetary damages, Such ihjudes and

damages we¡e for¿seeable.

72. Pursua¡t to æ U,S.C. $1367, this Court has pendaot or supplcmental
jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate such claims.

pEIWAt{p FOR .ITJRY rRrAL
73. Plaintiffs dcmand trial by jury.

PRAYER FORRELIDF \ilhcrefore, Plaintiffs request tbe follovring relief:
1. A declaratory judgment that Defcndang violatcd Plai¡tiffs' rights r¡ndcr
the First, Foufh and Fourteenth Amcndments to the Constitution of thc Unitsd States and42 U.S.C. $ 1983' and Aficle I, Scctious 6, 8, and 12 of the Ncw York State Constítution,

ff

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 29 of 41

2- Damages in the amount of ât least approximately $47,000 against tbe City

of New York a¡d the indivídual defendalts, jointly and severally, togcther with int¿rest and

costs.

3. Punitive damages i¡ an nmount of atleast $1,000 against the individual

defendants John Doe and Richa¡d Roe el ¿1. whose ¿qtions constituted outragsous conduct, wcte

reckless, and showcd a callous indiffcrcnce to and willñ¡l disrcgard of Plaintiffs' rights as set

forth above.

4, The oost of this action, including reasonable attonrcys' fceq pursuant to

42 U.S,C. $ 1e88.
5.

Any frrrther and different rclicf that this Court deens appropriaæ,

Datcd: New York, New York May ?3,2O12

Yours, efc.

SIBGEL TEITETBAUM & EV

LLP

Sha¡on Sprayregcnr
26O Madison Avenuo, 2td Floor New Yorþ NY 10016
Q72) 4ss-O3OO nsiegel@sbllp.com
htei tel.baum@stellp.com ssprayregc@ stcllp.com
rNotadmitted in the Southem Distriot of New York
Attorn4ts for P la ¡nt¿fs
16

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 30 of 41
EXHIBIT B

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 31 of 41

UNITED STATE,S DIS]'RIC'| COTJRT SOTJTI{ERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

OCCIJPYWALLSTREET'anuninoorporatedassociation by and through Christine Crowther and Diego lbanez, as-its ie.fitcto Treasurers, AMANDA ROSE HENK, MICHELE r.E.E TTENNESTY, FRANCES MERCANTI-ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, and ELIZABETH ITAGIN, Plaintiffs,

ÄNS\ryBR t2 CY 4129 (GBD)

-against-
TI{E CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG In his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York RAYMOND KÈLIY, in his official capacíty as Police Commissioner, JOIIN DOHERTY, in his offìcial capacity as Sanitation Commissioner, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE and other presently unidentified officials, employees
and/or agents oith" City of New York in their official and
individual capacities,
Defendants.
x Defendants, the City of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Raynrond Kelly
and John Doherty (collectively "City defendants") by their attomey, MICHAEL A' CARDOZO' corporation counser of the city of New york, for their answer to the complaint' respectfully

allege:

L

Deny thc allegations set fo*h in paragraph I of the complaint, cxcept

admit that plaintiffs purport to proceed as set forth therein'
2, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the complaint, except
admit that city employees removed some property from zuccolli Park on November 15,2011
and then made it available for inspection and pick-up by properly identified members of the

public,
,3'Denytheallegationsset,forthinparagraph3<lfthecomplaint,except

admit that plaintiffs purport to proceed as set foÉh therein,

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 32 of 41

4. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the cornplaint, except

admit that venue is ProPer.
5, l)eny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the complaint, except admit that plaintiffs purport to

proceed as set forth therein,
6. Deny knowleclge or inforrnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the complaint, except admit that demonstrations
purporting to be associated with "Occupy Wall Streef'have taken place in New York City'
7. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the complaint'
g. Dcny knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the complaint,

'g.Admittheallegationssetforthinparagraphgofthecomplaint.
10. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the complaint, except
admit that Michaer Bloomberg is the Mayor of the city of New york and that, as such, he has the powers and duties set forth in Chapter 1, Section 3, et' seq' of the New York City Charter

("City Charter").
I l.

Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph I I of the camplaint, except

admit that Raymond Kelly is the commissioner of the New York city Police Depaftment

(,,NYPD,,) and that, as such, he has the powers and duties set forth in City Charter Chapter 18'

Section 43 1, et.seq,
12. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the complaint, except
admit that John Doherty is the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Sanitation

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 33 of 41
("DSNY") and that, as such, he has the powers and duties set forth in City Charter Chapter 31, Section 73 l, et,scq,
13, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the complaint, except
admit that plaintiffs purport to proceed as sct forth therein.
14, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the complaint, except
aclmit that defendants acted lawfully and under color of state law and that plaintiffs purport to procced as set forth therein.
15, Deny the allegations set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 15 olthe complaint, except admit that on or about September ,17 201l, a group purporting to be
associated with "Occupy Wall Street" began demonstrating in lower Manhattan in a Privately Owned Public Space ("POPS") know as Zuccotti Pa¡k. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in the second and third sentences of paragraph l5 of the complaint.
16. Deny knowledge or iiifonnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the complaint, except deny the allegations to the extent they allege or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a liblary in Zuccotti Park, and insofar as they characterize the actions taken on November 15, 201I as an eviction,
17, Deny knowledge or ínformation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph l7 of the complaint, except deny the allegations to the extent they allege or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a librzry in Zuccotti Park, ancl insofar as they characterize the actions taken'on November 15,2}ll as a raid,
18, Deny knowledge or information suffìcient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set fortli in paragraph l8 of the complaint.
-3-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 34 of 41

lg, Deny knowleilge or infbrmation sufhcient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in thc first sentence of paragraph 19 of the complaint' Deny the allegations set forth in the second sentçnce of paragraph 19 of the complaint to the extent they
allege or purpoft to allege that defendants actcd improperly or contrary to law'
ZO. Deny the allegation set forth in the first sentence of paragraph 20 of the
complaint only insofar as they describe the,NYPD's actions on November 15, 2011 as .,enforoing the City's policy," Admit the allegations set forth in the second and third sentences

in paragraph 20 of the comPlaint,

, 2l

Admit the allegation set forth in palagraph 21 of the complaint,

22. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 or the complaint, except

admitthat City employees removed some property from Zuccotti Park onNovember 15,2011, loaded it into DSNY trucks, and removed it to a DSNY facility where it was made available for

inspection and pick-up.by properly i<lentified members of the public'
23. Deny knowledge or information suffrcient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of the complaint; except deny the allegations to the extent they allege or purport to allege that defendants acted improperly or contrary to law and to the extent they allege or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a library in Zuccotti Park'
24, Deny the allegations set forth in the paragraph24 of the complaint, except

admit that Mayor Bloomberg authorized and assumed responsibility for the action taken to

temporarily clear Zuccotti Park on November 15, 201 l '
25. Deny the allegations set forf:h in paragraph 25 of the complaint'

-4-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 35 of 41

26, Deny the allegation set forth in paragraph 26 of the complaint to the extent
they allege or purport to allege that defendants acted improperly or contrary to law and to the extent they allege or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a library in Zuccotti Park'
27, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 27 of the complaint28, Deny the allegations set forth in paragrapli 28 of the complaint' 29. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 29 of the complaint. 30. Deny fhe allegation.s set'forth in paragraph 30 of the compliant, except
arlmit that DSNy records indicate that both Michele Harclesty and Elizabeth Fagin werc present at, ancl retrieved property from, the DSNY West 57th Strect garage on November 16 and

November 18, 201 I '

l.3

Deny knowledge or information suffìcient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations set forth in paragraph 31 of the complaint, except deny the allegations insofar

as they allege or purport to allege that defendants acted improperly or contrary to law ancl to the

extent they allege or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a library in Zuccotti Park.

32, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 32 of the complaint'

33. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the allegations sçt forth in paragraph 33 of the complaint, except deny the allegations insofar as they characterlze the defendants actions as "seizing" property and insofar as they allege or

purport to allege that defendants acted improperly or contrary to law and to the extent they allege

or purport to allege that it was lawful to maintain a library in Zuccotti Park'

34. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of the complaint.

3S, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 35 of the complaint.

36, De¡y the allegations set f'orth in paragraph 36 of the complaint'

-5-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 36 of 41
37. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 37 of thc complaint. 38. De¡y the allegations set forth in the lirst sentence of paragraph 38 of the
conrplaint, except admit thal on or about F'ebruary 9, 2012, "Occupy Wall Street' an
unincorporated association, by an<J through Peter J. Dutro, as de faclo Treasurer" fi led a Notice of claim regarding various property with the New York city comptroller. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth, in the second sentence in paragraph 38 of the complaint,
39, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 39 of the cornplaint, except
admit that in temporarily clearing Zuccotti Park onNovember 15,2011, defendants were acting under color of state law.
40. In response to paragraph 40 of the complaint, defendants repeat the
responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein'
4t. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 4l of the complaint. 42, Deny lhe allegations set forth inparagraph 42 of the complaint. 43. In response to paragraph 43 of the complaint, defendants repeat the
responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein'
44, Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations set forth in paragraph 44 of the complaint, except deny the allegations to the extent they allege or purpof to allege that defendants acted improperly or contrary to law,
45, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 45 of the complaint, 46, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 46 of the complaìnt' 47. In response to paragraph 47 of the complaint, defendants repeat the
responses to the paragraphs of the complaint inoorporated by reference therein'
-6-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 37 of 41

48, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 48 of the complaint, 49. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 49 of the complaint. 50. In response to paragraph 50 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

rcsponses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein.

L 5

Deny thc allegations set forth in paragraph 5 I of the complaint.

52. l)eny the allegations set forth in paragraph 52 of the complaint.

53. Deny the allegations set fofth in paragraph 53 of the complaint.

54. In response to paragraph 54 of the complaint, defenãants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein,
55, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 55 of the complaint. 56, In response to paragraph 56 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein,

,57

Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 57 of the complaint.

58. In response to paragraph 58 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein.
59. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 59 of the complaint. 60. In response to paragraph 60 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein.
61. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 6l of ths complaint. 62. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 62 of the complaint, exccpt

deny that the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to hear such clai¡ns.
63. In response to paragraph 63 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein.

,|

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 38 of 41

64, Deny the allegations sct forth in paragraph64 of the complaint. 65. Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 65 of the complaint, except

deny that thc Court should exercise its jurisdiction to hear such claims'
66. In response to paragraph 66 of the complaint, defenclants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein,

, 67

Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 67 oî the complaint.

68. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 68 of the complaint.

69, Admit the allegations set forth in paragraph 69 of the complaint, except

deny that the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to hear such claims,
7Q, In response to paragraph 70 of the complaint, defendants repeat the

responses to the paragraphs of the complaint incorporated by reference therein.

. 7 |

Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 1 of the complaint.

72. Admit the allegations set fofth in paragraph 72 of the complaint, except

deny that the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to hear such claims.

-

73, Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph 73 of the complaint, except

admit that plaintiff's purport to proceed as set forth therein,

F'IRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
74. The complaint fails to state a olaim upon whích relief ca¡ be granted'
SPCOND AFFIRMATIVE qEIìDNSE
75. Defendants have not violated any rights, privileges or immunities secured

to the plaintiffs by the constitution or laws of the United States nor have defendants violated any

act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.

-8-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 39 of 41
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
76. Defendants have not violated any rights, privileges or immunities secured
to the plaintiffs by the constitution or laws of the State of New York. FOURTH AT¡FIT{M ATI VN DEFENSE
77. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the decla¡atory relief they seek.
IIFTH ¡1.r'rrnMAÏ'rvE DEFENSE
78. Plaintiffs are not the lawful owners of all or some of the property that is
alleged to be missing or damaged and, thus, they do not have standing to maintain all or some of their claims,
s. üljrH AITFIRMATIVE DEF ENSE
79. At all times relevant to the acts alleged in the complaint, the duties and
functions of the City's offrcials entailed the reasonable exercise of their proper and lawful
discretion, Therefore, defendant City has govemmental immunity frorn liability.
SDVENTH AFFIIIMATIYE DEFENSE
80. Any injury alleged to have been sustained resulted from plaintiffs' own
culpable or negligent conduct and/or the intervening conduot of third parties and was not the
proximate result of any act of the defendants.
EIGHT4 A FFIIìM./{1"IYA DEFENSE
81, Ptaintiffs comes to this court without clean hands and are, thus, barred
from obtaining the injunctive relief it seeks under the doctrine of unclçan hands, WHEREFORE City defendants respectfully request a judgment dismissing the
complaint, awarding defendant its costs and disbursernents herein, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,
-9 -

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 40 of 41

Dated:

Nçw York, New York June 14,2012

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorney for City Defendants 100 Church Street, Room 5-175 New York, New York 10007 (2r2) 788-103s sneufe I dlD.law. nvc. so v
By:
R. sufeld Assistant Corporation

-l0-

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 9 Filed 06/25/12 Page 41 of 41
Index No. 12 CV 4129 D
LJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
OCCUPY WALL STREET, an unincorporated association by and through Christine Crowther and Diego lbanez, as its de facto Treasurers, AMANDA ROSE HENK, MICHELE LEE HARDESTY, FRANCES MERCANTI-ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, ANd ELIZABETH FAGIN,
Plaintiffs,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG In his
official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York RAYMOND KELLY, in his official capacity as Police Çommissioner, JOHN DOHERTY, in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner, JQHN DQE and RICHARD ROE and other presently unidentif,red offìcials, employees and/or agents of the City of New York in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants/Th ird-Party Plaintiffs. -againstBROOKFIELD OFFICE PROPERTIES, INC
Third-Party Defendant
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
At t o r ney for D efendan ts
I 00 Church Street New York, N.Y. 10007 Of Counsel: Sheryl R. Neufeld
Tel: (212) 788-1035
2012-0224004L
Due and timely service ís hereby admitted. Esq.
Attorney for

 
 Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 33 Filed 04/09/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------- ---------------------------------------------------- X

OCCUpy WALL STREET, an unincorporated association by and through Christine Crowther and Diego Ibanez, as its de facto Treasurers, AMANDA ROSE HENK, MICHELE LEE HARDESTY, FRANCES MERCANTJ-ANTHONY, JAIME TAYLOR, and ELIZABETH FAGIN
Plaintiffs,

12 CV 4129 (GBD)
STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE AND SETTLEMENT

-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as Mayor ofthe
_ _- _. .IWiI• •.w.lI~ RAYMOND KELLY. in his official capacity as Police Commissioner, JOHN DOHERTY, in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner, JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE and other presently
unidentified officials, employees and/or agents of the City of New York in their official and individual capacities
DefendantsfThird-Party Plaintiffs,
- against-
BROOKFIELD OFFICE PROPERTIES, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant. ------._--------------------------------------.,---.------------- X

WHEREAS, on or about May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking i) a declaratory judgment that Defendants' seizure and destruction of Plaintiffs' books and library furnishings and equipment at Zuccotti Park on November IS, 2011 violated Plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, el. seq., and Article I, Sections 6,8, and 12 of the New York State

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 33 Filed 04/09/13 Page 2 of 5
Constitution; ii) damages sustained as a result of the violations alleged as well as punitive damages; and iii) attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 14, 2012 Defendants answered the Complaint and denied committing any violations of law; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 26, 2012 Defendants served a Third Party Complaint on Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. alleging Inter alia, that if the Plaintiffs sustained any injury or had their rights violated, Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. was partially or wholly responsible; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 15, 2012 Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. answered the Third Party Complaint and denied any responsibility for any injury sustained by Plaintiffs as alleged in the Complaint; and
WHEREAS, there is no dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendants as regards the importance of books and libraries to Plaintiffs' efforts to promote an educated and informed citizenry; and
WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to sett1e this action pursuant to the terms set forth below, and Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. has agreed to indemnify Defendants as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, this matter is settled on the following terms: 1. The above-referenced action, including the third-party action, is discontinued with prejudice and without costs, expenses, or any additional fees, except those set forth in paragraphs "3," "4" and "6" below. 2. Defendants acknowledge and believe it unfortunate that, during the course of clearing Zuccotti Park on November 15, 2011, books were damaged so as to render them
2

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 33 Filed 04/09/13 Page 3 of 5
unusable, and additional books are unaccounted for. Defendants further acknowledge and believe it unfortunate that certain library fl.trnishings and equipment likewise were damaged so as to render them unusable, and other library furnishings and equipment may be unaccounted for. Plaintiffs and Defendants recognize that when a person's property is removed by the City it is important that the City exercise due care and adhere to established procedures in order to protect the legal rights of the property owners.
3. The City of New York (''the City"), on behalf of all Defendants, shall pay to the Occupy Wall Street, Library Working Group Forty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($47,000) ("the settlement amount") in full settlement of all of Plaintiffs' claims for damages. Payment of the settlement amount shan be made by forwarding a check in the amount of $47,000 directly to Plaintiffs' attorney at 260 Madison Avenue, 221ld Floor, New York, New York 10016 and made jointly payable to Occupy Wall Street, Library Working Group and Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans, LLP. So that the City can make payment of the settlement amount, Plaintiffs shall forward the following to the undersigned counsel for the City: I) a "So Ordered" copy of this stipulation; 2) the Taxpayer ID number used by Occupy Wall Street; 3) the Taxpayer ID number used by Plaintiffs' counsel; 4) an executed affidavit of no liens for each named Plaintiff; and 5) a release executed by each named Plaintiff.
4. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' attomeys' fees of One Hundred EightyFive Thousand Dollars ($185,000) pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1988, and One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Nine Dollars and Fifty-Eight Cents ($1,349.58) for costs and expenses incurred in this matter. Payment of the total amount of fees and costs ($186,349.58) shall be made by forwarding a check in that amount directly to Plaintiffs' attorney at 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10016 and made payable to Siegel Teitelbaum & Evans, LLP.
3

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 33 Filed 04/09/13 Page 4 of 5
5. Upon receipt of the payments required in paragraphs "3" and "4" above, Plaintiffs shall release Defendants and all departments, officials, employees, representatives and agents of the City, past and present, from any and all claims and right to damages for injury to property owned by Plaintiffs which are or could be asserted arising out of the acts and omissions alleged in the Complaint filed in the instant action, provided the claims are for injury to property owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have executed, or will execute, releases to be held by the City, which will take effect upon payment of the settlement amounts.
6. Third-Party Defendant, Brookiield Office Properties, Inc. in settlement of the third-party action initiated by the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs on or about June 26, 2012 shall indemnify the City in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Seven Cents" ("$15,666.67"), by delivering a check made payable to the City of New York in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Seven Cents" ("SI 5,666.67") to the undersigned counsel for the City.
7. Upon receipt of the payments required in paragraphs "6" above, ThirdParty Plaintiffs shall release the Third~Party Defendant and all employees, representatives and agents of the Third·Party Defendant, past and present, from any and all claims and right to damages which are or could be asserted arising out of the acts and omissions alleged in the Third-Party Complaint filed in the instant action.
8. This Stipulation of Discontinuance and Settlement contains all the tenns and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time, nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the instant action shall be deemed to exist, to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.
4

Case 1:12-cv-04129-GBD Document 33 Filed 04/09/13 Page 5 of 5

9. This Stipulation, and the settlement it represents, shall not be admissible in

any other litigation or settlement negotiation.

10. This Stipulation may be submitted to the Court to be so ordered, docketed

and filed without further notice to any party.

Dated: New York, New York April 4, 2013

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attorney for Defendantsrrhird~Party Plaintiffs
100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356-2207
B~l;Jt \.1r AO;lfA;,( ikld O1~;.1/00-1)
Senior Counsel

SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 455-0300

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER

& JACOBSON LLP

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant

Brookfield Office Properties, Inc., One New York Plaza

New. York, Noeow Y.

1 _ 4(JL..I?Z By:.
~oug1

. Flaum

L--

Ric d G. Leland

Dated:

2013

New York, New York

SO ORDERED:

~~ &])~ -.

-

•• <'... ......-.~,-_#-----------~

. G reB. Daniels

ited States District Judge

5

 
 Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 1 of 10
CLOSED,CASREF,ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:12−cv−04129−GBD

Occupy Wall Street et al v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge George B. Daniels Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank Maas (Settlement) Related Case: 1:12−cv−05086−GBD Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/24/2012 Date Terminated: 04/09/2013 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Occupy Wall Street an unincorporated association by and through Christine Crowther and Diego Ibanez, as its de facto Treasurers

represented by Norman H Siegel Siegel Teitelbaum &Evans LLP 260 Madison Ave 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 212 455−0300 Fax: 212 448−0066 Email: siegelnorman@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum Bryan Cave LLP (NY) 1290 Avenue of Americas New York, NY 10104 (212) 541−2000 Fax: 212−541−1383 Email: hteitelbaum@stellp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Amanda Rose Henk

represented by Norman H Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Michele Lee Hardesty

represented by Norman H Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Frances Mercanti−Anthony

represented by Norman H Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 2 of 10

Plaintiff Jamie Taylor

represented by Norman H Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Elizabeth Fagin

represented by Norman H Siegel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Herbert Teitelbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Michael Bloomberg in his official capacity as mayor of the City Of New York
Defendant Raymond Kelly in his official capacity as Police Commissioner

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356−2207 Fax: (212) 791−9714 Email: sneufeld@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Robert Ciappetta NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)−356−2215 Fax: (212)−791−9714 Email: nciappet@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Robert Ciappetta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicholas Robert Ciappetta

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 3 of 10

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doherty in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Robert Ciappetta (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe Individually

Defendant
John Doe in his official capacities

Defendant
Richard Roe Individually

Defendant
Richard Roe in his official capacity

Defendant
Other Presently Unidentified Officials, Employees and/or Agents of The City of New York

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Occupy Wall Street an unincorporated association by and through Christine Crowther and Diego LIbanez, as its de facto Treasurers TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Amanda Rose Henk TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff
michele Lee Hardesty TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Frances Mercanti−Anthony TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Jamie Taylor TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 4 of 10

Elizabeth Fagin TERMINATED: 06/25/2012

ThirdParty Plaintiff The City of New York

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff Michael Bloomberg

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Raymond Kelly in his official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Superintendent John Doherty in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner,

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
John Doe in official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
John Doe in their individual capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Richard Roe in their official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Richard Roe individual capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. ThirdParty Defendant Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.

represented by Douglas H. Flaum Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &Jacobson One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004 212−859−8259

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 5 of 10

Fax: 212−859−4000 Email: douglasflaum@paulhastings.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Raymond Kelly in his official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Richard Roe in their official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
John Doe in their individual capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Superintendent John Doherty in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner,

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Richard Roe individual capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff The City of New York

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff
John Doe in official capacity

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ThirdParty Plaintiff Michael Bloomberg

represented by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. ThirdParty Defendant Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.

represented by Douglas H. Flaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 6 of 10 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/24/2012
05/24/2012 05/24/2012 05/24/2012 05/30/2012
06/05/2012 06/05/2012 06/06/2012 06/12/2012
06/14/2012 06/25/2012 07/03/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, John Doe, John Doe, Raymond Kelly, Other Presently Unidentified Officials, Employees and/or Agents of The City of New York, Richard Roe(Individually), Richard Roe(in his official capacity), The City of New York. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 9184)Document filed by michele Lee Hardesty, Amanda Rose Henk, Occupy Wall Street, Elizabeth Fagin, Frances Mercanti−Anthony, Jamie Taylor.(ama) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, John Doe, John Doe, Raymond Kelly, Other Presently Unidentified Officials, Employees and/or Agents of The City of New York, Richard Roe(Individually), Richard Roe(in his official capacity), The City of New York. (ama) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
Magistrate Judge Frank Maas is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Michael Bloomberg served on 5/24/2012, answer due 6/14/2012; John Doherty served on 5/24/2012, answer due 6/14/2012; Raymond Kelly served on 5/24/2012, answer due 6/14/2012; The City of New York served on 5/24/2012, answer due 6/14/2012. Service was accepted by Dmitriy Aronov. Document filed by michele Lee Hardesty; Amanda Rose Henk; Occupy Wall Street; Elizabeth Fagin; Frances Mercanti−Anthony; Jamie Taylor. (Siegel, Norman) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
3 INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 6/18/2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge George B. Daniels and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/30/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld on behalf of Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly (Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 06/05/2012)
5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld on behalf of Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York (Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
6 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Norman Siegel dated 6/5/2012 re: Counsel requests an adjournment of the initial pretrial conference in the above captioned case from June 18, 2012 to July 2 or 3, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to July 3, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/12/2012) (js) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York.(Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
9 THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.Document filed by Raymond Kelly, Richard Roe(in their official capacity), John Doe, John Doherty, Richard Roe(individual capacity), The City of New York, John Doe, Michael Bloomberg.(laq) (Entered: 07/10/2012)
8 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: 1. Additional parties may be joined and the pleadings may otherwise be amended as a matter of course on or before October 1, 2012, except that plaintiffs may as a matter of course substitute individuals for all or some of the John Does and Richard Roes on or before November 30, 2012. 2. No additional parties may be joined and the pleadings may not otherwise be amended as a matter of course after October 1, 2012 or November 30, 2012, as noted above. Nothing herein shall prohibit either party from filing any motion permitted pursuant to Rule 15, including a motion to amend a pleading and/or to add additional parties. Amended Pleadings due by 11/30/2012. Joinder of Parties due by 11/30/2012. Discovery due by 12/14/2012.

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 7 of 10

07/03/2012 07/10/2012
07/10/2012 07/11/2012
07/11/2012 08/08/2012
08/08/2012
08/15/2012 08/15/2012 09/14/2012
10/12/2012

Case Management Conference set for 9/10/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Pretrial Order due by 3/11/2013. Ready for Trial by 4/11/2013. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/3/2012) (djc) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 7/3/2012. Plaintiff Counsel, Defense Counsel and Court Reporter present. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/09/2012)
12 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Douglas H. Flaum dated 7/9/2012 re: I am writing to respectfully request that the Court grant Brookfield an additional 30 days to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Third Party Complaint dated June 25, 2012, making such answer or response due by August 15, 2012. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/9/2012) (rjm) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. answer due 8/15/2012. (rjm) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Third Party Complaint,. Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. served on 6/26/2012, answer due 7/17/2012. Service was accepted by Richard G. Leland, Esq.. Document filed by Raymond Kelly(in his official capacity); John Doherty(in his official capacity as Sanitation Commissioner,); The City of New York; Michael Bloomberg. (Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
11 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Douglas H. Flaum on behalf of Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. (Flaum, Douglas) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
13 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERNCE held on 7/3/2012 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jennifer Thun, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/4/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/13/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
14 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 7/3/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
15 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Brookfield Asset Management Inc. for Brookfield Office Properties, Inc.. Document filed by Brookfield Office Properties, Inc..(Flaum, Douglas) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
16 ANSWER to 9 Third Party Complaint,. Document filed by Brookfield Office Properties, Inc..(Flaum, Douglas) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 9/13/2012. Norman Siegel, Herbert Teitelbaum for Occupy Wall Street; Whylie Stecklow for Global Resolution; Richard Leland and Laura Sinrod for Brooksfield Officer Properties, Inc. Sheryl Neufeld for the City of New York. The next conference is scheduled for December 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
17 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 9/13/2012 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Ganley, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/5/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2013.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2012)

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 8 of 10

10/12/2012 11/23/2012 11/26/2012
12/10/2012 01/08/2013 01/08/2013 01/16/2013
01/23/2013

18 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 9/13/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
19 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Nicholas Robert Ciappetta on behalf of Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York (Ciappetta, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/23/2012)
20 REVISED CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: This plan is also a scheduling order pursuant to Rules 16 and 26(F) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additional parties may be joined and the pleadings may otherwise be amended as a matter of course on or before January 30, 2013, except that plaintiffs may as a matter of course substitute individuals for all or some of the John Does and Richard Roes on or before March 1, 2013. Discovery shall be commenced in time to be completed by April 5, 2013. Dispositive motions are to be served by May 10, 2013. Answering papers are to be served within 28 days. Reply papers are to be served within 28 days. A final pretrial conference will be held on June 25, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The Joint Pretrial Order shall be filed no later than June 17, 2013. All motions and applications shall be governed by the Court's Individual Rules of Practice. The parties shall be ready for trial within 48 hours notice on or after July 17, 2013. The estimated trial time is 5 days, and this is a jury trial. The Next Case Management Conference will be held on December 11, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Amended Pleadings due by 1/30/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 1/30/2013. Discovery due by 4/5/2013. Case Management Conference set for 12/11/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/25/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Pretrial Order due by 6/17/2013. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/26/2012) (ja) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
21 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sheryl R. Neufeld dated 12/6/2012 re: Request to adjourn the 12/11/2012 conference. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to January 8, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ( Case Management Conference reset for 1/8/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/10/2012) (cd) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 1/8/2013. Norman H. Siegel, Herbert Teitelbaum for Pl. Occupy Wall Street; Wyolie M. Stecklow for Pl. Global Revolution TV, Inc.; Sheryl Neufeld for Def. City of New York, Douglas H. Flaum for Def. Brookfield Properties and Court Reporter present. The next conference is scheduled for March 5, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
22 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/8/2013) (ja) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
23 SECOND REVISED CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: After consultation with counsel for the parties, the following Case Management Plan is adopted. This plan is also a scheduling order pursuant to Rules 16 and 26(F) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Joinder of Parties due by 4/1/2013. Discovery due by 5/15/2013. Case Management Conference set for 3/5/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/5/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. Pretrial Order due by 7/29/2013. Ready for Trial by 9/9/2013. The estimated trial time is 5 days, and this is a jury trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/16/2013) (ama) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
24 NOTICE OF COURT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference in the above referenced matter has been scheduled for March 6, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York 10007. Judge Maas' settlement procedures are attached. Requests for adjournment

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 9 of 10

01/30/2013 01/30/2013 01/30/2013 02/07/2013
02/07/2013 02/27/2013
03/13/2013
04/09/2013 04/09/2013

must be made to the Court, in writing, at least 48 hours prior to the conference. (mro) (Entered: 01/23/2013)
25 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial). Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York. Responses due by 2/13/2013(Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
26 DECLARATION of Sheryl R. Neufeld in Support re: 25 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial).. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−B)(Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
27 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 25 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial).. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York. (Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
28 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sharon Sprayregen dated 2/6/2013 re: Plaintiff's counsel writes to request that the next status conference which is currently scheduled for March 5, 2013, be adjourned to a date after March 6, when the parties are scheduled to meet with Magistrate Judge Maas. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered. The conference is adjourned to April 10, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. (Status Conference set for 4/10/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/7/2013) (ago) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
29 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Sheryl Rebecca Neufeld on behalf of Michael Bloomberg, John Doherty, Raymond Kelly, The City of New York. New Address: New York City Law Department, 100 Church Street, New York, New York, 10007, 212−356−2207. (Neufeld, Sheryl) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
30 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas from Sheryl R. Neufeld dated 2/27/2013 re: I am an attorney in the office of Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, counsel for defendants in the above−referenced actions. I am writing on behalf of counsel for all parties in both of the above−referenced cases to request that your Honor adjourn the scheduled March 6, 2013 settlement conference. ENDORSEMENT: Adjourned to 4/8/13 at 3 pm in Courtroom 9A. ( Settlement Conference set for 4/8/2013 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Frank Maas.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Frank Maas on 2/27/2013) (djc) Modified on 3/1/2013 (djc). (Entered: 02/27/2013)
31 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sharon Sprayregen dated 3/13/2013 re: The parties have agreed to extend the time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings until 4/12/2013. The parties have also agreed that Defendants' time to serve their reply, if any, is extended until 5/3/2013. ENDORSEMENT: So Ordered., Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 25 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial) : (Responses due by 4/12/2013, Replies due by 5/3/2013.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/13/2013) (sac) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
32 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sharon Sprayregen dated 4/4/2013 re: I am an Associate at Siegel Teitelbaum and Evans, LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs in the above−referenced action. The parties have settled the litigation and are in the process of obtaining signatures on the settlement documents. Accordingly we respectfully request that the April 10, 2013 status conference be cancelled. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 4/9/2013) (mt) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
33 STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE AND SETTLEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, this matter is settled on the following terms: The above−referenced action, including the third−party action, is discontinued with prejudice and without costs, expenses, or any additional fees, except those set forth in paragraphs "3," "4" and "6" below...The City of New York (''the City"), on behalf of all Defendants, shall pay to the Occupy Wall Street, Library Working Group Forty−Seven Thousand Dollars ($47,000) ("the settlement amount") in full settlement of all of Plaintiffs' claims for damages. Payment of the settlement amount shall be made by forwarding a check in the amount of $47,000 directly to Plaintiffs' attorney at 260

Case: 1:12-cv-4129 As of: 05/24/2014 11:21 AM EDT 10 of 10
Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10016 and made jointly payable to Occupy Wall Street, Library Working Group and Siegel Teitelbaum &Evans, LLP. So that the City can make payment of the settlement amount, Plaintiffs shall forward the following to the undersigned counsel for the City: 1) a "So Ordered" copy of this stipulation; 2)the Taxpayer ID number used by Occupy Wall Street; 3) the Taxpayer ID number used by Plaintiffs' counsel; 4) an executed affidavit of no liens for each named Plaintiff; and 5) a release executed by each named Plaintiff; Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of One Hundred Eighty− Five Thousand Dollars ($185,000) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and One Thousand Three Hundred Forty−Nine Dollars and Fifty−Eight Cents ($1,349.58) for costs and expenses incurred in this matter. Payment of the total amount of fees and costs ($186,349.58) shall be made by forwarding a check in that amount directly to Plaintiffs' attorney at 260 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10016 and made payable to Siegel Teitelbaum &Evans, LLP...Third−Party Defendant, Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. in settlement of the third−party action initiated by the defendants/Third−Party Plaintiffs on or about June 26, 2012 shall indemnify the City in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty−Six Dollars and Sixty−Seven Cents" ("$15,666.67"), by delivering a check made payable to the City of New York in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Sixty−Six Dollars and Sixty−Seven Cents" ("$15,666.67") to the undersigned counsel for the City...and as further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 4/9/2013) (mt). Modified on 4/18/2013 (mt). (Entered: 04/09/2013)