Court Opinion

ID: 9958762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:15.439536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.701123
License: Public Domain

Barrett v Manhattan Detention Complex
               2024 NY Slip Op 31074(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 158949/2018
               Judge: Nicholas W. Moyne
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:          HON. NICHOLAS W. MOYNE                        PART                                52
                                                                Justice
                                                                     X      INDEX NO,            15894912018
             MONTE BARRETT,
                                                                            MOTION DATE           08/18/2023
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.           005
                                        -v-
             MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX, THE CITY OF NEW
             YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF                             DECISION + ORDER ON
             CORRECTIONS, JOHN DOE NO. 1, OHN DOE NOS. 2-10                          MOTION

                                              Defendant.
                                     ------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 139, 140, 141, 142,
            144,145,146,147, 148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157, 158,159,160,161,162,163,164,
            165
            were read on this motion to/for                         AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

           Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                   Plaintiff, Monte Barrett commenced this action seeking to recover for personal injuries

           allegedly sustained on July 29, 2017, when his right hand was crushed in an electronic sliding

           door while he was incarcerated at Manhattan Detention Complex. Plaintiff moves for an order,

           pursuant to CPLR § 3025, granting him leave to amend the complaint to add and/or reinstate his

           Second Cause of Action: a claim of municipal liability arising out of an alleged violation of his

           Eighth Amendment rights.

                   Defendants, Manhattan Detention Complex, The City ofNew York, and The New York

           City Department of Corrections (collectively "City defendants"), oppose the motion to amend

           and/or reinstate and cross-move for an order, pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(7), dismissing the

           plaintiffs Federal Cause of Action for the failure to state a claim. Alternatively, the City seeks

[* 1]                                                  1 of 19COMPLEX
            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vo. MANHATTAN DETENTION                                   Page 1 of 19
            Mntlnn Nn   nn5
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           an order bifurcating the Monell claim for discovery and trial and staying discovery and trial on

           the Monell claim until after the conclusion of plaintiff's remaining claims.

                                              Relevant Procedural History:

                    In Motion Sequence 003, the City defendants moved to dismiss and the plaintiff cross-

           moved for leave to amend the complaint. In the decision and order, plaintiff's Second, Third, and

           Fourth Causes of Action were dismissed, and the cross-motion was denied. However, despite this

           denial the decision also permitted the plaintiff to move for leave to amend his complaint to

           attempt to comply with pleading requirements for Monell claims against the City (see NYSCEF

           Doc. No. 85). The plaintiff's Second Cause of Action, the Federal Cause of Action for Monell

           liability based on a purported violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and deliberate

           indifference to his medical needs,
                '                          . . was dismissed because the complaint failed
                                                                                    .     to adequately

           allege a policy or custom as required to sustain a Monell claim.

                    ln Motion Sequence 004, plaintiff moved for a default judgment for the City defendants'

           failure to timely answer his proposed amended complaint and the City defendants cross-moved

           to compel acceptance of an answer and to dismiss claims in the proposed amended complaint. In

           the decision and order, plaintiff's motion was denied as this amended complaint was

           procedurally improper and the City defendants' cross-motion was denied as moot. Plaintiff was

           afforded an additional subsequent opportunity to seek leave to amend the complaint, pursuant to

           a motion made in compliance with CPLR § 3025 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 136).

                                                      CPLR§ 3025:

                    On a CPLR § 3025 motion, applications fo amend pleadings are within the sound

           discretion of the trial court, with the consideration that leave shall be freely given upon such

           terms as may be just (Kimso Apartments, LLC v Gandhi, 24 NY3d 403,411 [2014]). Motions for

            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN OETENTION COMPLEX                            Page 2 of 19
            Motion No. 005
[* 2]                                                   2 of 19
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           leave shall be freely granted, absent prejudice or surprise resulting therefrom, unless the

           proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (MBIA Ins. Corp. v

           Greystone & Co., Inc., 74 AD3d 499,499 [1st Dept 2010]). A movant need not establish the

           merit of the proposed new allegations, however in order to conserve judicial resources,

           examination of the underlying rnerit of the proposed amendments is mandated (Thompson v

           Cooper, 24 AD3d 203,205 [1st Dept 2005]). Accordingly, leave will be denied where the

           proposed amendment, as pleaded, fails to state a cause of action, or is palpably insufficient as a

           matter oflaw (Id.).

                                                          CPLR§ 3211 {a){7):

                             On a CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) motion to dismiss, the defendants bear the burden of

           establishing that the complaint fails to state a viable cause of action ( Connolly v Long Is. Power

           Auth., 30 NY3d 719, 728 [2018]). The question is whether the complaint '.1dequately alleged facts

           giving rise to a cause of action, not whether it properly labeled or artfully stated one (Sassi v
                                                                                                            '
           Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236,239 [2021]}. On a motion to dismiss claims for

           the failure to state a cause of action which include claims arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983, New
                                                                                     ;

           York Courts apply the standard under CPLR § 3211 (a)(7) rather than federal pleading standards

           (Vargas v City ofNew York, 105 AD3d 834,837 [2d Dept 2013]; see generally (Jorge v City of

           New York, 220 AD3d 593, 593 [1st Dept 2023]).

                                               Eighth Amendment & Municipal Liability:.

           Eighth Amendment:

                             The Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and

           imposes a duty on prison officials to ensure that inmates receive adequate medical care (Jones v

           Westchester County Dept. of Corrections Med. Dept.; 557 F Supp 2d 408,413 [SONY 2008]). A

[* 3]                                                  3 of 19
            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX
            1a.-.+; ...... t.1 ...   nn,:
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           violation of the Eighth Amendment can be proven only if an inmate can demonstrate that prison

           officials have acted with deliberate indifference to his or her serious medical needs (Matter of

            Wooley v New York State Dept. a/Correctional Services, 15 NY3d 275,282 [2010); relying on

           Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97, 105, 97 S Ct 285,291, 50 L Ed 2d 251 [1976]). In the proposed

           amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the City defendants "violated plaintiffs Eighth

           Amendment Right of the United States Constitution when they engaged in a deliberate

           indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners, specifically, the plaintiff therein" (proposed

           amended complaint ,r 47). Plaintiff alleges that for days and/or weeks following his injury on

           July 29, 2017, the City defendants continued to deny, and never provided, plaintiff adequate,

           prompt, or proper medical care (Id. ,r 48). Plaintiff alleges that the City defendants demonstrated

           a deliberate indifference to his medical needs by failing to provide medical care that would

           prevent permanent and/or debilitating injuries and alleges that due to the City defendants

           intentionally and/or negligently withholding medical care, delaying and/or denying proper and

           necessary treatment, and/or knowingly interfering with plaintiffs medical treatment, exacerbated

           his injury (Id ,r ,r 49, 50). However, it is well-settled that a municipal defendant is subject to

           statutory liability for deliberate indifference to medical needs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 only where

           an injury results from the execution of ar) unconstitutional policy or practice (Small v St,

           Barnabas Hosp., 165 AD3d 576,576 [1st Dept 2018]).

           Monell Liability:

                  Therefore, in seeking to reinstate the claim, plaintiff contends that the proposed amended

           complaint now sets forth the necessary elements of a Monell claim by demonstrating an official

           policy or practice when it comes to administering medical care to inmates in the City defendants'

           care, 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the statutory vehicle by which a plaintiff may bring a civil claim based

            158949/2018 SARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                             Page4 of 19
            Motion No. 005
[* 4]                                                    4 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           on an alleged violation or deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the

           United States Constitution and/or federal Jaw (see 42 USC 1983). The Supreme Court ~fthe

           United States held that a local government or municipality may be held liable under 1983 for the

           deprivation of Constitutional rights caused as a result of an official policy or custom (MoneU v

           Dept. ofSocial Services of City of New York, 436 US 658,690 [1978]). Under 1983, a·

           municipality cannot be held liable for the acts of its employees on a theory of respondeat

           superior, rather the plaintiff must demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the

           municipality was the moving force behind the alleged injury (Lucente v County ofSuffolk, 980

           F3d 284,297 [2d Cir 2020]; Monell v Dept. ofSocial Services ofCity ofNew York, 436 US 6.58,

           690 [1978]). Accordingly, to hold a city liable under 1983 for the unconstitutional actions of its

           employees, a plaintiff.is required to plead and prove three elements: (I) an official policy_ or
                                                    '
           custom (2) that causes the plaintiff to be subjected to (3) a denial of a constitutional right (Wray v

           City ofNew York, 490 F3d 189, 195 [2d Cir 2007]).

                  A plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality must prove that action pursuant

           to official municipal policy caused their injury (Connick v Thompson, 563 US 51, 60, 131 S Ct

           1350, 1359, 179 L Ed 2d 417 [2011]). The mere invocation of the pattern or plan will not suffice

           without a causal link and absent a showing of a causal link between an official policy or custom

           and the plaintiffs injury,a finding ofHability against the City is prohibited (Batista v Rodriguez,

           702 F2d 393, 397 [2d Cir I 983]). The injury alleged must consist of a constitutional violation

           (Tirado v City ofNew York, 19CV10377LAKSN, 2021 WL 11646299, at *8 [SDNY Jan. 25,

           2021]; see also City of Los Angeles v Heller, 475 US 796, 799, 106 S Ct 1571, 1573, 89 L Ed 2d

           806 [1986]).

[* 5]                                                    5 of 19
            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANH_ATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                           Page 5 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                  A plaintiff may show the existence ofa policy or custom by any of the following; (I} an

           express policy or custom; (2) an authorization of a policymaker of the unconstitutional practice;

           (3) failure of the municipality to train or supervise its employees, which exhibits a deliberate

           indifference to the rights of its citizens; or (4) a practice of the municipal employees that is so

           permanent and well settled so as to imply the constructive acquiescence of senior policymaking

           officials (Swinson v City ofNew York, 19 CV. 11919 [KPF], 2022 WL 142407, at *5 [SDNY

           Jan. 14, 2022], relying on Corley v Vance, 365 F Supp 3d 407,'438 [SDNY 2019], affd sub nom.

           Corley v Wittner, 811 Fed Appx 62 [2d Cir 2020][summary order]). Whichever theory plaintiff

           offers, boilerplate assertions of a municipal policy are insufficient to state a claim for Monell

           liability, facts supporting the policy's existence must be pied (Felix v City ofNew York, 344 F

           Supp 3d 644,653 [SDNY 2018]).

                  In an attempt to make out a claim of a custom, policy, or practice with respect to the City

           defendants alleged provision of inadequate medical care, the proposed amended complaint

           includes a portion of excerpts of complaints received in response to a Freedom oflnformation

           Law (FOIL) request, a news article about the experiences of Dr. Homer Venters, and two articles

           discussing the unfortunate deaths of two inmates. Plaintiff contends that the factual allegations

           and exhibits in the proposed amended complaint are sufficient to plead that the City defendants

           had an official policy that (I) was established by the actions or decisions of a policymaker; (2)

           pervasive or widespread so as to constitute a custom or usage; and (3) demonstrates the failure of

           the municipality to train or supervise its employees, constituting deliberate indifference. The
                                                                                      '
           Court disagrees.

            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX .                           Page 6 of 19
            Motion No. 005
[* 6]                                                    6 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                  Policymaking Official:

                  Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a claim of liability based on an official policy or

           custom estabiished by the actions or decisions of a municipal official. Even a single action by a .

           deeisionmaker who possesses final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the

           action ordered may deprive the plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights (Montero v City of

           Yonkers, New York, 890 F3d 386, 403 (2d Cir 20181). When a non-decisionmaker committed the

           violation, a plaintiff must allege facts suggesting that an officer with final policymaking

           authority ordered; ratified, or was aware of a subordinate's unconstitutional actions and

           consciously chose to ignore them, effectively ratifying the actions (Hu v City ofNew York, 927

           F3d 81, I 05 [2d Cir 20191). The plaintiff must show that the official has final policymaking

           power and that the challenged actions are within that official's area of policymaking authority

           (Roe v City of Waterbury, 542 F3d 31, 37 [2d Cir 2008)).

                  The proposed amended complaint includes an allegation that the City defendants, "by

           their policy-making agents, servants and employees, authorized sanctioned and/or ratified the

           individual defendant's wrongful acts" (proposed amended complaint ,r 54). However, the

           plaintiff fails to name or identify any individuals and/or officials in the proposed amended

           complaint let alone those with final policy or decision-making authority with respect to how,

           when, and to whom medical services were to be administered at the corrections facility (see

           Bektic-Marrero v Goldberg, 850 F Supp 2d 418,430 {SDNY 2012]; Clarke v Antonini, 21 CIV.

           1877 (NSR], 2022 WL 4387357, at *7 [SDNY Sept. 22, 2022); see also Schwab v Smalls, 435

           Fed Appx 3 7, 40 [2d Cir 20 I I)). Accordingly, plaintiff also fails to plead any factual allegations

           which would plausibly suggest that any policymaking official was involved with, informed of, or

           otherwise made aware of the conduct which comprises his claim.

            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                            Pago 7 ol 19
            Motion No. 005

[* 7]                                                   7 of 19
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   Further, the article cited in the proposed amended complaint, entitled "Do Jails Kill

           People" and written about the fonner Chief Medical Officer for the New. York City Correctional

           Health Services Dr. Homer Venters, is insufficient to allege that the City defendants had a policy

           that was established by a policymaking official. Plaintiff contends that this article, from a person

           of power and authority, confirms the City defendants' alleged policy or practice of administering

           inadequate care which "came from the top down starting all the way at the Mayor's office"

           (affirmation of plaintiff's counsel in opposition to cross mot 'I; 3 3). However, none of the factual

           allegations in the proposed amended complaint demonstrate that Dr. Venter was an official with

           final policymaking power, reference the extent of his authority, or mention whether he exercised

           this authority to deprive inmates of medical care (Clarke v Antonini, 21 CIV. 1877 [NSR], 2022

           WL 4387357, at •7 [SDNY Sept. 22, 2022]; see also Zherka v City ofNew York, N. Y, 08 CV

           9005 LAP, 2010 WL 4537072, at *4 [SDNY Nov. 9, 201 OJ, ajfd sub nom. Zherka v City ofNew

           York, 459 Fed Appx 10 [2d Cir 2012]). Nor does the article includes allegations suggesting that

           other municipal officials, with final policymaking power regarding the provision of medical care

           to incarcerated individuals, had notice of any unconstitutional conduct or ordered, ratified, or

           consciously ignored the alleged practice of denying medical care. (see Roe v City of Waterbury,

           542 F3d 31, 37 [2d Cir 2008)). Finally, contrary to plaintiff's claim, the article does not state that

           the Mayors' office, either through action or inaction, established an official policy to provide

           inadequate care to inmates. Rather the article speculatively relays that Dr. Venters blamed City

           Hall and former mayors for the condition and culture of brutality v.'ithin Rikers (see Sifonte v

           City ofNew York, 194 AD3d 435,436 [1st Dept 2021]). Therefore, the proposed amended

          · complaint fails to raise a plausible inference that plaintiff's alleged constitutional injury was

            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                             _Page 8 of 19
            Motion No. 005

[* 8]                                                    8 of 19
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            caused by a City official with final policymaking authority (see Hu v City ofNew York, 927 F3d

            81, 105 [2d Cir 2019]).

            Widespread Practice or Policy:

                   Plaintiff has also failed to adequately plead the existence of a policy or practice that is so

           persistent and widespread it constitutes a custom through which constructive notice may have

           been imposed. An official policy requirement may be met by alleging a practice so persistent and

           widespread, or permanent and well settled, as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of

           law and to imply the constructive knowledge of policymaking officials (Felix v City ofNew

           York, 344 F Supp 3d 644, 653 [SONY 2018], citing Sorlucco v New York City Police Dept., 97 l

           F2d 864, 870 [2d Cir 1992]). Such    apolicy may be pronounced or tacit and reflected in either
           action or inaction (Lucente v County ofSl!ffolk, 980 F3d 284, 297 (2d Cir 2020]). A practice is

           widespread when it is common or prevalent throughout the entity and under this category, a

           policymaker indirectly causes the misconduct of a subordinate by acquiescing in a longstanding

           prn.ctice or custom which may be fairly said to represent official policy (Buari v City ofNew

           York, 530 F Supp 3d 356,398 (SONY 2021]). Therefore, to demonstrate a de facto policy or

           custom, a plaintiff must show that a policymaker was aware ofa subordinate's unconstitutional

           actions, and consciously chose to ignore them, effectively ratifying the actions (Id.).

                   The proposed amended complaint includes an allegation that the City defendants have

           engaged in a widespread practice or policy of failing to provide adequate and/or aeceptable

           medical care to inmates in their custody and control (proposed amended complaint ,i 58). In an

          · attempt to allege the existence of a persistent or widespread practice, plaintiff alleges that the

           City defendants have been the subject of numerous complaints, grievances, lawsuits, and/or

           investigations with respect to the provision of medical treatment or care (see proposed amended

[* 9]                                                  9 of 19COMPLEX
            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION                                      Page 9 of 19
            .a--., ..... ,u..., f'ltu:
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           complaint ,r ,r 58, 6 I). In support of this allegation, plaintiff cites to excerpts of complaints and/or

           grievances which were received in resp~nse to a FOIL request, the aforementioned news article

           about Dr. Homer Venter, and includes two news articles discussing the settlements reached in

           lawsuits over the deaths of two inmates at Rikers Island. These supporting exhibits, whether

           reviewed separately or in conjunction, fail to enable the plaintiff to adequately allege a claim.

                  In the proposed amended.complaint, plaintiff offers excerpts of complaints that were

           made to 311 which he received through FOIL from "just a limited time prior to and including the

           time period of the subject incident," regarding the medical care of inmates (proposed amended

           complaint ,r 61 ). Plaintiff alleges that these complaints demonstrate a longstanding policy or

           custom to ignore or disregard the medical complaints of inmates and deprive them of reasonable

           medical care (proposed amended complaint ,r ,r 60, 61 ). However, contemporaneous or

           subsequent conduct cannot establish a pattern of violations that would provide notice to the City

           and the opportunity to confirm to constitutional dictates (Douglas v City of Peekskill, 2 l-CV-

           10644 [KMK], 2023 WL 2632217, at *8 [SONY Mar. 24, 2023]; Badia v City ofNew York, 214

           AD3d 551,553 [1st Dept 2023]; quoting Connickv Thompson, 563 US 51, 63,131 S Ct 1350,

           1360, 179 L Ed 2d 417 [2011 ]). These complaints, which plaintiff himself describes as being

           from a limited time before and during the time of plaintiffs incident, do not support an inference

           of a well-settled or longstanding practice of which officials could have had notice.

                  Notwithstanding, these 311. complaints are also insufficient to plead the existence of a

           pattern or practice of providing inadequate medical care that is consistent and widespread across

           the entity. Of the complaints and/or grievances provided, many contain allegations speaking to

           possible violations or misconduct which is not at issue in the plaintiffs case; including,

           complaints about facility conditions, requests for different materials/furnishings, and requests for

[* 10]                                                10 of 19
            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                              Page 10 of 19
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

         certain documentation or transfers (see Roman v City of Mount Vernon, 21-CV-2214 [KMK],                        I

         2022 WL 2819459, at *21 [SDNY July 19, 2022]). Further, these 311 complaints were made by                      lI
                                                                                                                        •
         both.various parties including inmates, family, and representatives, using various means and/or

         methods, and most of which do not contain an indication.that they were reviewed, and/or
                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                        I
                                                                                                                        I
         whether they were investigated or substantiated (see Id.). Further, these complaints do not
                                                                                                                        'rI
         support an inference of a common or prevalent practice throughout the entity considering that the              i'
                                                                                                                        I'
         overwhelming majority are about/from Rikers Island, with very few coming from other facilities.                i
         In addition, only a small number of these grievances contain allegations which attribute any                   Ir
         conduct to a specific or named employee within a facility and of these allegations, none

         implicate the same conduct or employees. Finally, both the proposed amended complaint and                      I
         these 311 complaints fail to include factual allegations that any relevant official or supervisor

         was aware of the complaints or the allegations of conduct within, yet consciously chose to ignore

         them (Douglas v City of Peekskill, 21-CV-10644 [KMK], 2023 WL 2632217, at *8 [SDNY Mar.

         24, 2023)). Therefore, these complaints are insufficient to demonstrate a widespread practice or

         pattern of similar viol_ations to constitute an official policy or custom.

                 Next, the "Do Jails Kill People" article is also insufficient to demonstrate the City

         defendants had a persistent or widespread practice of providing inadequate medical care to

         inmates. The article is based on Dr. Homer Venters' book, "Life and Death in Rikers Island",

         about his personal observations while employed at Riker's Island. As previously mentioned, this

         is a different facility than the one where plaintiff was incarcerated, and the article makes no

         references to any other DOC facilities. As the articles are based on this one facility, it is

         insufficient to plead a common or prevalent practice throughout the entity. As both the article

         and the book on which it is based were published in 2019, post-dating the plaintiff's claim,

          15894912018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                            Page 11 of 19
          Motion No. 005    ·
[* 11]                                                      11 of 19
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            neither can be said to have provided notice to the City defendants of any of the unconstitutional
                                                                     ."
            conduct which may have been alleged within (see Felix v City ofNew York, 344 F Supp 3d 644,

            658 fSDNY 2018] [a plaintiff may not rely on a later-published report.when there does not

            appear to be any indication that officials had earlier notice of their contents]). Finally, the book is

            centered on Venters' experiences from the years of2008 to 2017 and the article mentions

            allegations or incidents which are sparsely accompanied by a date or year. Of the incidents

            acc-0mpanied by a year, they are temporally distant and· involve misconduct that is not similar to

            that which comprises the plaintiffs alleged constitutional injury. The article or book also

            contains more general allegations suggesting customs or practices which are not accompanied by

            a date. However, without factual allegations in either the proposed amended complaint and/or the

            article to plausibly suggest that these customs or usages were still the same at the time of

            plaintiffs claim, these allegations are insufficient (see Yousefv County of Westchester, 19~CV-

            1737 [CS], 2020 WL 2037177, at *12 [SDNY Apr. 28, 2020]). Accordingly, the article fails to

            support an inference of a persistent and widespread pattern or practice.

                   A plaintiff may allege a persistent or widespread practice by pleading that "the local          r

            government, 'faced v.ith a pattern of misconduct and does nothing,' has 'compelled the

            condusiort that the local government has acquiesced in or tacitly authorized its subordinates'

            unlawful actions"' (Tirado v City ofNew York, !9CV10377LAKSN, 2021 WL ll646299, at *IO

            [SDNY Jan. 25, 2021], quoting Reynolds v Giuliani, 506 F3d 183, 192 [2d Cir 2007]). There

            must be sufficient instances of tolerant awareness by supervisors of the conduct to support an

            inference that they had a policy, custom, or usage of acquiescence in ~uch conduct (Lucente v

            County ofSuffolk, 980 F3d 284,297 (2d Cir 2020]). A plaintiff may also bolster their claim by

           providing evidence that the municipality had notice of but repeatedly failed to make any

                                                                                                       I
             158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                            Page 12 of 19
             Motion No. 005

[* 12]                                                  12 of 19
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           meaningful investigation into allegations of constitutional violations, such as by citing to similar

           incidents from other lawsuits or settlements (Tirado v City ofNew York, 19CV10377LAKSN,

           2021 WL 11646299, at* 10 [SONY Jan. 25, 2021]., accord Lucente v County ofSuffolk, 980 F3d

           284,297 [2d Cir 2020]). A plaintiff may plead_the existence of a de facto policy by citing to

           complaints in other cases that contain similar allegations (Buari v City ofNew York, 530 F Supp

           3d 356,399 (SONY 2021)). Such complaints must involve factually similar misconduct, be

           contemporaneous to the misconduct at issue in the plaintiff's case, and result in an adjudication

           of liability (Id.).

                     Accordingly, the two news articles involving lawsuits over the deaths of two inmates at

           Rikers Island which are ·referenced in the proposed amended complaint are insuflicient to allege

           a de facto custom or policy. Neither of the two v.Tongful death lawsuits highlighted by these

           articles resulted in adjudication on liability but rather both cases ended in settlement without an

           admission or finding of liability. The two articles also involve misconduct that is temporally

           distant, with the cases arising out of events which occurred in 2013 and 2002, respectfully. 1

           Further, these articles discuss lawsuits which are factually .distinguishable from the plaintiff's

           claim and do not include_ comparab_le misconduct or actors as those alleged in the proposed

           amended complaint (see Clarke v Antonini, 21 CIV. 1877 [NSRJ, 2022 WL 4387357, at *8

           [SONY Sept. 22, 2022]). Therefore, these news articles are insufficient to plead the existence of

           a de facto custom or usage of which the City defendants had notice.

           Failure to Train or Supervise:

           1
            Notwithstanding, these articles are insufficient to establish a persistent or longstanding practice as one of these
           articles discusses that after the Investigation Department released its findings on the then-prison healthcare
           company in 2015, it was announced the City was letting its contract with that provider.lapse and the City agency
           NYC Health & Hospitals would b_e taking over the provision of medical care in jails (see NY5CEF Doc. No. 90).
           Accordingly, these articles do not suggest an inference of tolerant awareness or acquiescence by the City
           defendants (see Outlaw v City of Hartford, 884 F3d 351, 380 [2d Cir 2018)).

[* 13]                                                          13 of 19
               1589491201 B BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHA TTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                                    Page 13 of 19
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                  Finally, the proposed amended complaint fails to set forth a claim of Monell liability

           under theories of the City defendants' failure to train or failure to supervise its subordinates, such

           that it amounted to deliberate indifference. The official policy requirement may be met by

           identifying a failure to train or supervise subordinates in a relevant respect, amounting to a

           deliberate indifference to the rights of those whom the municipality's employees come into

           contact (Felix v City ofNew York, 344 F Supp 3d 64{ 653 [SONY 2018]). Therefore,.municipal

           liability may be based on a municipality's inaction, if 'the need to act is so obvious, and the

           inadequacy of current practices so likely to result in the deprivation of federal rights, that the

           municipality ... can be found deliberately indifferent to the need"' (Pettiford v City of Yonkers,

           14 CIV. 6271 [JCM], 2021 _WL 2556172, at *6 [SONY June 21, 2021] quoting Reynolds v

           Giuliani, 506 F3d l 83, 192 [2d Cir 2007)). However, a 1983 claim against a municipality is at its

           weakest where it turns on an alleged failure to train or supervise (Greene v City ofNew York, 742

           Fed Appx 532, 536 [2d Cir 2018] quoting Connick v Thompson, 563 US 51, 61, 131 S Ct 1350,

           1360, 179 L Ed 2d 417 (2011 ]). Claims of municipal liability for the failure to train or failure to

           supervise are analyzed separately (Buari v City ofNew York, 530 f Supp 3d 356,399 [SDNY

           2021])..

                  Failure (o Train:

                  To state a claim for liability based on a failure to train, a plaintiff must allege that a

          municipality's failure to train its employees in a relevant respect amounted to a deliberate

          indifference to the rights of persons with whom the untrained employees come into contact
                                                                                                                           I
          (Hernandez v United States, 939 F3d 191,207 [2d Cir 2019]). _Deliberate indifference is a
                                                                                                                           1
          stringent standard of fault, and for liability to attach in this circumstance, the identified

          deficiency in a city's training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury (Hernandez

[* 14]                                                   14 of 19
           !?89491~.016__E!AFiRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                          Pane 14 of 1'A
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

               v United States, 939 F3d 191,207 [2d Cir 2019J). The proposed amended complaint does not set

               forth factual allegations that the City defendants failed to train suhordinates or that suggest an

               obvious need for more or different training. Further, the proposed amended complaint does not

               identify a training program, poliey, or procedure, or otherwise allege a specific deficiency within·

               said training. Nor do the additional sources cited by the proposed amended complaint include

               allegations regarding the need for better training, identify deficiencies in the City defendants'

               training of its ·subordinates, or otherwise implicate a failure to train in some respect (Felix v City

               ofNew York, 344 F Supp 3d 644, 660 [SDNY 2018]). Considering, plaintiff has failed to plead a ·

               claim based on a failure to train.

                      Failure to Supervise:

                      As with a failure to train, under a failure to supervise theory, a plaintiff must plausibly

               allege that the City's policymakers were knowingly and deliberately indifferent to the possibility .

               that its' employees were likely to commit constitutional violations (Tirado v City ofNew York,

               19CV10377LAKSN, 2021 WL ll646299, at *12 [SONY Jan. 25, 2021]; relying on Amnesty

               Am. v Town o/W. Hartford, 361 F3d 113, 127 [2d Cir 2004]). In the proposed amended

               complaint, plaintiff alleges that all acts and omissions were carried out pursuant to overlapping

               policies and practices of the City defendants, which were in existence at the time of the conduct

           alleged and were engaged in with the full knowledge, consent and cooperation and under the

           supervisory authority of the
           '                        .   City defendants (proposed amended complaint ,i 53). Additionally,

           plaintiff alleges that the City defendants, by their policy-making agents, servants and employees,

           authorized, sanctioned, and/or ratified the individual defendants' acts as. alleged, and/or failed to

           prevent or stop those acts and/or allowed those acts to continue (proposed amended complaint ,i

           54). However, these allegations are insufficient.

               158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                             Page 15 of 19
               Motion No. 005                             15 of 19
[* 15]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   To establish a custom or policy through a municipality's deliberate indifference to a

           failure to supervise, the plaintiff must show that the need for more or better supervision to

           protect against constitutional violations was obvious (see Vasquez v City ofNew York, 20-CV-

           4641 [ER], 2023 WL 8551715, at *6 [SONY Dec. 11, 2023); relying on Vann v City ofNew

           York, 72 F3d I 040, I 049 [2d Cir 19951). A plaintiff may plead a failure to supervise by showing

           ( 1) a pattern of allegations of or complaints about, or a pattern of actual, similar unconstitutional

           activity, and (2) the municipality consistently failed to investigate those allegations,

           demonstrating deliberate indifference (Atadzhanov v City ofNew York, 21-CV-5098 [LJLJ, 2022

           WL 4331304, at *11 [SONY Sept. 19, 2022]). There is no requirement that complaints result in a

           formal finding of misconduct for such complaints to support findings of failure to supervise

           (Buari v City ofNew York, 530 F Supp 3d 356,400 [SDNY 2021]). However, the deliberate

           indifference standard is stringent and requires proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known

           or ob.vious consequence (Yousef v County of Westchester, I 9-CV-1737 [CS), 2020 WL 2037177,

           at * 11 [SONY Apr. 28, 2020]). A plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to make it plausible that

           the municipality was on notice of similar misconduct (Mancuso v Vil. ofPelham, JS-CV-7895

           [KMK], 2016 WL 5660273, at *10 [SONY Sept. 29, 2016]).

                   Therefore, for the same reasons that plaintiff failed to plead a claim of a persistent and

           widespread practice, plaintiff has also failed to plead a claim for the failure to supervise based on

           an obvious need for better supervision. Plaintiff has failed to include factual allegations which.

           allege a pattern of similar violations or misconduct, nor include allegations which would suggest

           the City defendants' notice.

                  Further, even if the allegations in the proposed aniended complaint were sufficient to

           allege a pattern or practice, the plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the City defendants'

            15894912018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                            Page 16 of 19
            Motion No. 005

[* 16]                                                   16 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           deliberate indifference to such. An allegation ofnwnerous claims of the underlying

           constitutional wrong by itself is insufficient to raise an inference of deliberate indifference due to
                       -
           a failure to supervise (Taranto v Putnam County, 21-CV-2455 [KMK], 2023 WL 6318280, at

           *20 [SDNY Sept. 28, 2023]). Rather, the plaintiff must allege that meaningful attempts to

           investigate repeated claims are absent (Id.). A 1983 claim for deliberate indifference by a

           municipality is not sustainable where its failure is attributable to mere negligence rather than to

           conscious choice (Outlaw v City ofHartford, 884 F3d 351,379 [2d Cir 2018]).

                   The proposed amended complaint alleges that the City defendants have engaged in

           repeated practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals

           similarly situated and demonstrated their deliberate indifference to medical complaints not only

           of the plaintiff, but of countless inmates before him (proposed amended complaint ,i ,r 58, 60).

           Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the City defendants, by their policy 0 making agents, servants

           and employees, authorized, sanctioned, and/or ratified the individual defendants' acts as alleged,

           and/or failed to prevent or stop those acts and/or allowed those acts to continue (proposed

           amended complaint ,i 54). However, these conclusory assertions are insufficient to plead

           deliberate indifference without additional factual allegations suggesting a consistent failure to

           investigate or forestall incidents.

                  The. proposed amended complaint fails to allege that despite notice of other similar

           complaints, there was a consistent failure to or lack of any meaningful attempt to investigate.

           Nor do the additional sources included in the proposed amended complaint plead the City

           defendants' deliberate indifference to the provision of inadequate medical care. In fact, within

           the 311 complaints provided by the plaintiff and of the ones involving the need or requests for

           medical care, there are responses and/or indication that those matters were forwarded for review.

            158949/2018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                           Pago Hof 19
            Motion No. 005

[* 17]                                                  17 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           and/or were being investigated by staff at the facilities (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 88 at 222-223;

           224-232; 233-236; 241-243; 250). These responses indicate that the complaint matter was either

           addressed, resolved, and/or the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated (Id.). Considering, the

           plaintiff has failed to adequately allege a failure to supervise claim based on the City defendants'

           deliberate indifference.

           Causation:

                  Finally, supposing the plaintiff plausibly allege~ an official policy or custom, his claim

           against the City defendants would nevertheless fail as he has not alleged a constitutional

           violation that was caused by said custom or policy. Plaintiff merely alleges that the City

           defendants "clearly have established an official policy or custom which causes plaintiffs and

           others similarly situated to him, to be subjected to a denial of a constitutional right" (proposed·

           amended complaint at 60). But municipalities may only be held liable when the municipality

           itself deprives an individual of a constitutional right (Dume! v Westchester County, 19-CV-2161

           [KMK], 2021 WL 738365, at •4 [SDNY Feb. 25, 2021)). Therefore, a plaintiff must show a

           direct or affirmative causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged

           constitutional deprivation (Outlaw v City of Hartford, 884 F3d 35 l, 373 [2d Cir 2018]; see also

           Dumel.v Westchester County, 19-CV-2161 [KMK], 2021 WL 738365, at *4 [SDNY Feb. 25,

           2021 ]). Liability requires that the alleged unconstitutional policy was the "moving force" behind

           plaintiffs' injury- a showing that amounts to proximate cause (Felix v City ofNew York, 344 F

           Supp 3d 644, 654 [SDNY 2018]). Plaintiff has not included factual allegations to plausibly

           connect his asserted injury to the alleged policy or custom, or which would otherwise support an

           inference that the City defendants' policy or practices were the moving force behind his alleged

           constitutional injury, such that the City may be held responsible (see Lopez v City a/New York,.

[* 18]                                                 18 of 19
            15894912018 BARRETT, MONTE vs. MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                           Page 18 of 19
            Motion No. 005
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 158949/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 166                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

           I :19-CV-03887-MKV, 2021 WL 466974, al *7 [SDNY Feb. 9, 2021]). As the plaintiff has not

           adequately alleged a causal link between an official policy or custom and his alleged, his claim

           based on Monell liability fails (Batista v Rodriguez, 702 F2d 393, 397 [2d Cir 1983]).

                                                          Conclusion:
                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is denied; and it

           is further

                      ORDERED that the cross-motion by the City defendants to dismiss the Second Cause of

           Action in the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint is GRANTED.

                     This constitutes the decision and order of the court,

                      3/2912024
                         DATE                                                  NICHOLAS W. MOYNE, J.S.C.

                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED          .       ~QN.flNAL DISPOSITION
                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED       GRANTED IN PART         0    OTHER
           'APPLICATION;                  SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANS~ER/REASSIGN     FIOUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

[* 19]                                                     19 of 19
           ... . __ ... .......
           158949/2018
             _,    _ BARRETT, MONTE vs, MANHATTAN DETENTION COMPLEX                               Page 19 of.19