UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- x 

CARMEN WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER CORY 

HAYES, SHIELD NUMBER 19955, AND POLICE 

OFFICER “JOHN DOE”, SHIELD NUMBER 21148, 

Defendants. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- x 

ANSWER ON BEHALF OF 

DEFENDANTS CITY OF 

NEW YORK AND CORY 

HAYES 

07 Civ. 5734 (SHS) 

Jury Trial Demanded 

Defendants City of New York and Cory Hayes, by their attorney, Michael A. 

Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, for their answer to the complaint, 

respectfully allege, upon information and belief, as follows: 

1. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “1” of the complaint, except 

admit that plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein. 

2. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “2” of the complaint, except 

admit that plaintiff purports to proceed as stated therein. 

3. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “3” of the complaint, except 

admit that plaintiff purports to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as stated therein. 

4. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “4” of the complaint, except 

admit that plaintiff purports to base venue as stated therein. 

5. Paragraph “5” of the complaint sets forth a demand for a jury trial, rather 

than an averment of fact, and accordingly no response is required. 

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

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “6” of the complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 8
7. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “7” of the complaint, except 

admit that the City of New York is a municipal corporation organized and operating pursuant to 

the laws of the State of New York. 

8. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “8” of the complaint, except 

admit that the City of New York maintains a Police Department, and respectfully refer the Court 

to the New York City Charter and the Administrative Code for a recitation of the relationship 

between defendant City and the New York City Police Department. 

9. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “9” of the complaint, except 

admit that Cory Hayes is employed by the City of New York as a police officer, and deny 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations concerning “Police 

Officer ‘John Doe.’” 

10. Paragraph “10” of the complaint states conclusions of law, rather than 

averments of fact, and accordingly no response is required. 

11. Paragraph “11” of the complaint states conclusions of law, rather than 

averments of fact, and accordingly no response is required. 

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

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “12” of the complaint. 

13. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “13” of the complaint. 

14. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “14” of the complaint, except 

admit that plaintiff was handcuffed and arrested by New York City Police Officers on or about 

July 7, 2004. 

15. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “15” of the complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 8
16. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “16” of the complaint, except admit that plaintiff was 

transported to Transit Bureau District 4. 

17. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “17” of the complaint. 

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

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “18” of the complaint. 

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

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “19” of the complaint. 

20. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “20” of the complaint. 

21. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph “21” of the complaint, 

defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs “1” through “20” of this answer as if fully set forth 

herein. 

22. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “22” of the complaint. 

23. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “23” of the complaint. 

24. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “24” of the complaint. 

25. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph “25” of the complaint, 

defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs “1” through “24” of this answer as if fully set forth 

herein. 

26. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “26” of the complaint. 

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

of the allegations set forth in paragraph “27” of the complaint. 

28. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “28” of the complaint. 

29. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “29” of the complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 3 of 8
30. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph “30” of the complaint, 

defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs “1” through “29” of this answer as if fully set forth 

herein. 

31. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “31” of the complaint. 

32. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “32” of the complaint. 

33. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph “33” of the complaint, 

defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs “1” through “32” of this answer as if fully set forth 

herein. 

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

35. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “35” of the complaint. 

36. In response to the allegations set forth in paragraph “36” of the complaint, 

defendants repeat and reallege paragraphs “1” through “35” of this answer as if fully set forth 

herein. 

37. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “37” of the complaint. 

38. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “38” of the complaint. 

39. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “39” of the complaint. 

40. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “40” of the complaint. 

41. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “41” of the complaint. 

42. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “42” of the complaint. 

43. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “43” of the complaint, 

including all of its subparts. 

44. Deny the allegations set forth in paragraph “44” of the complaint. 

AS AND FOR A FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

45. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 4 of 8
AS AND FOR A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

46. Defendants have not violated any rights, privileges or immunities under 

the Constitution or laws of the United States or the State of New York or any political 

subdivision thereof, nor has defendant violated any Act of Congress providing for the protection 

of civil rights. 

AS AND FOR A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

47. Any injury alleged to have been sustained resulted from plaintiff’s own 

culpable or negligent conduct and/or the intervening conduct of third parties, and was not the 

proximate result of any act of the defendants. 

AS AND FOR A FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

48. There was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest, detention, and 

prosecution. 

AS AND FOR A FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

49. Plaintiff cannot obtain punitive damages as against the City of New York. 

AS AND FOR A SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

50. At all times relevant to the acts alleged in the complaint, defendant City of 

New York, its agents and officials, acted reasonably and properly in the lawful exercise of their 

discretion. Therefore, they are entitled to governmental immunity from liability. 

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

51. Plaintiff provoked any incident. 

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

52. To the extent plaintiff’s complaint states claims arising under New York 

State law, these claims are barred for failure to comply with conditions precedent to suit, 

pursuant to New York General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 5 of 8
AS AND FOR A NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

53. Cory Hayes has not violated any clearly established constitutional or 

statutory rights of which a reasonable person would have known and therefore is protected by 

qualified immunity. 

AS AND FOR A TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: 

54. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable 

limitations period. 

WHEREFORE, defendants request judgment dismissing the complaint in its 

entirety, together with the costs and disbursements of this action, and such other and further 

relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 10, 2007 

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO 

Corporation Counsel of the 

 City of New York 

Attorney for Defendants City of New York 

and Cory Hayes 

100 Church Street, Room 3-137 

New York, New York 10007 

(212) 788-9790 

By: /s/ 

Amy N. Okereke 

Assistant Corporation Counsel 

To: Tracie A. Sundack, Esq. 

Tracie A. Sundack & Associates, L.L.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

19 Court Street, 3rd Floor 

White Plains, New York 10601 (via E.C.F. and first class mail) 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 6 of 8
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL 

I, AMY N. OKEREKE, declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of 

perjury that on SEPTEMBER 10, 2007, I served the annexed ANSWER upon the following 

counsel of record by depositing a copy of same, enclosed in a first class postpaid properly 

addressed wrapper, in a post office depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United 

States Postal Service, within the State of New York, directed to said counsel of record at the 

address set forth below, being the address designated by plaintiff for that purpose: 

Tracie A. Sundack, Esq. 

19 Court Street, 3rd Floor 

White Plains, New York 10601 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 10, 2007 

/s/ 

AMY N. OKEREKE 

ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 7 of 8
Index No. 07 Civ. 5734 (SHS) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

CARMEN WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., 

Defendants. 

ANSWER ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS 

CITY OF NEW YORK AND CORY HAYES 

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York 

Attorney for Defendants City of New York 

and Cory Hayes 

100 Church Street 

New York, New York 10007 

Of Counsel: Amy N. Okereke 

Tel: (212) 788-9790 

Due and timely service is hereby admitted. 

New York, N.Y........................................................................................... , 200... 

....................................................................................................................... Esq. 

Attorney for........................................................................................................... 

- 8 - 

Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 8 of 8