Court Opinion

ID: 9958714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:47.599665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.966930
License: Public Domain

Wexler v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31102(U)
                      April 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 161521/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 161521/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                               PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          161521/2023
             LINNEA WEXLER, LINNEA WEXLER,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.      003 004
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY FAMILY
             COURT, NEW YORK FAMILY COURT, BRONX FAMILY
             COURT, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK,
             APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
             NEW YORK, FIRST DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF
             ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN, TOWN OF
             SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK, SOUTHAMPTON TOWN                                                  DECISION + ORDER ON
             POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT                                                     MOTION
             ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SOUTHAMPTON TOWN JUSTICE
             COURT, SOUTHAMPTON TOWN ATTORNEYS, NEW
             YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT,
             ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, FIRST JUDICIAL
             DEPARTMENT, GIGI N. PARRIS, ASHLEY MULLIN,

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
            57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - DEFAULT                   .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,
            75, 76, 85, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107
            were read on this motion to/for                                                           DISMISS                         .

                      Motion Sequence Numbers 003 and 004 are consolidated for disposition. Petitioner’s

            motion (MS003) for a default judgment against respondents Town of Southampton, New York,

            Southampton Town Police Department, Southampton Town Justice Court and Southampton

            Town Attorneys, (collectively, the “Southampton Respondents”) is denied and these

            respondents’ cross-motion for leave to file a late response to the petition is granted. The

            Southampton Respondents’ motion (MS004) to dismiss is granted.
             161521/2023 WEXLER, LINNEA ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                            Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161521/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            Background

                   This Article 78 proceeding arises out of a Family Court dispute between petitioner and

            her former partner; petitioner insists that they were never married but that they share a daughter.

            She claims in that in March 2020, her former partner filed for a temporary order of protection

            based on false pretenses in order to remove the child from her. She observes that she is currently

            in the middle of litigation with her former partner over the custody of their daughter and insists

            that her former partner has access to tremendous resources through his law firm. Petitioner

            objects to various orders that, according to her, have resulted in her not being able to see her

            child (except for a few days) since March 1, 2023.

                   She makes numerous allegations against respondents that, basically, they have all

            condoned and reinforced the alleged fraud committed by her former partner on the courts. In

            addition to taking issue with many of the events in her custody litigation, petitioner also decries

            the state of Family Court in New York. She seeks, among many claims for relief, “a mistrial” of

            the Family Court case, at least $1 million from each of the respondents for various criminal acts,

            that the Family Court case be transferred to a different judge, and an order of protection against

            the judge and her court attorney. Petitioner insists that each of the many temporary orders of

            protection is illegal and violates the Family Court Act. She complains that sealed records were

            used in violation of the criminal code .

                   In motion sequence 003, petitioner seeks a default judgment against the Southampton

            Respondents. She observes that they were all served with the commencing papers on December

            5, 2023 but they did not timely answer or otherwise appear. She demands that two attorneys for

            the Town of Southampton be referred for criminal prosecution and to the appropriate attorney

            grievance committee. Petitioner also seeks an award of at least $1 million in damages “for each

             161521/2023 WEXLER, LINNEA ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                       Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161521/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            and every violation of Article 78 by [the] Southampton Respondents” as well as at least $1

            million in damages for inter alia being deprived of her parental rights and the criminal actions of

            the Southampton Respondents.

                   The Southampton Respondents cross-move for leave to serve a late response to the

            petition and make a separate motion (in MS004) to dismiss this proceeding. They explain that

            after receiving the commencing papers, they sent them to an insurance carrier. The Southampton

            Respondents observe that the insurance carrier denied coverage but the email expressing this

            position was not properly labeled and so they did not realize that the carrier had declined to

            provide a defense. They admit they were in default but insist that they quickly moved to appear

            in this proceeding.

                   In support of their motion to dismiss, the Southampton Respondents contend that

            petitioner’s only allegations against them relate to their production of petitioner’s arrest records

            in response to a so-ordered subpoena and that the arresting officer testified at a Family Court

            appearance. They contend that the production of documents and the testimony from a witness

            (the arresting officer) pursuant to judicial subpoenas do not constitute the basis for a cognizable

            cause of action as they were simply following the subpoena. The Southampton Respondents also

            point out that they produced these records in August 2021 and so this portion of petitioner’s

            claim is time-barred. They point out that petitioner’s criminal case was not dismissed (and

            therefore not sealed) until April 2023, long after they responded to the document subpoena. The

            Southampton Respondents question why petitioner did not move to quash these subpoenas.

                   Petitioner insists the Southampton Respondents turned over sealed records in violation of

            various criminal statutes and that they “illegally testified” during a custody hearing before

             161521/2023 WEXLER, LINNEA ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                        Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161521/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            Family Court. Petitioner claims that she objected to the use of these sealed records at the

            custody trial and that her requests were denied.

            Discussion

                   Preliminarily, the Court observes that petitioner cannot bring claims on behalf of her

            infant daughter as she does not have custody of her child (CPLR 1201). In fact, this proceeding

            appears to have arisen, largely, out of petitioner’s claims that she was wrongfully deprived of the

            custody of her daughter during proceedings in Family Court.

                   The Court denies petitioner’s motion for a default judgment. The Southampton

            Respondents cited a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely appear in this proceeding as the

            email they received from their insurance carrier that included the denial did not reference the

            denial in the body or subject line of the email (NYSCEF Doc. No. 81, ¶ 6). In any event, the

            Court must adhere to “the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits”

            (Rosario v General Behr Corp., 217 AD3d 641, 642, 192 NYS3d 122).

                   And, on the merits, the Court finds that petitioner failed to state a cognizable cause of

            action against the Southampton Respondents. That the Southampton Respondents turned over

            documents and sent a witness for a Family Court hearing pursuant to a so-ordered subpoena is

            not a basis for a cause of action. As they point out, petitioner should have sought to quash the

            subpoena; petitioner claims she raised objections at the Family Court appearance and her claims

            were denied.

                   Of course, that raises another fundamental issue with the instant proceeding. The proper

            method to raise objections to decisions in Family Court is to pursue an appeal of those

            determinations. It is not appropriate to directly sue these respondents and seek millions in

            damages based on dissatisfaction with the Family Court litigation. And the Court observes that

             161521/2023 WEXLER, LINNEA ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                      Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 161521/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 109                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

            an issue arising out of that Family Court proceeding went up on appeal (see e.g., Matthew P. v

            Linnea W., 197 AD3d 1070, 1070 [1st Dept 2021] [an appeal involving the custody case about

            which petitioner complains]).

                    As the Court stressed in the decision issued in motion sequence numbers 001 and 002,

            petitioner is clearly upset with the decisions issued in the aforementioned Family Court

            proceeding. But that apparent frustration is not a basis to sue nearly every entity and person

            involved with that dispute. The Southampton Respondents, at least on this record, merely

            complied with two subpoenas. That is not a basis for an Article 78 proceeding nor is it grounds

            to award petitioner millions of dollars in damages.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (MS003) for a default judgment is denied and the

            cross-motion by respondents Town of Southampton, New York, Southampton Town Police

            Department, Southampton Town Justice Court and Southampton Town Attorneys for leave to

            file a belated response to the petition is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the motion by respondents Town of Southampton, New York,

            Southampton Town Police Department, Southampton Town Justice Court and Southampton

            Town Attorneys to dismiss (MS004) the petition is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied in its entirety and this proceeding is dismissed

            without costs or disbursements.

                    4/2/2024                                                                $SIG$
                      DATE                                                          ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                X   CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                           GRANTED             DENIED      GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             161521/2023 WEXLER, LINNEA ET AL vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL                                Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 003 004

                                                             5 of 5
[* 5]