Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021
"A"
EXHIBIT
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
INDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
FfLED
NYSCEF DOC.
: NO.
DUTCHESS29 COUNTY CLERK 04/_220/2021 08: 20 AM| RECEIVED 09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
----------------------------------------X SUMMONS
JANE DOE -
19240,
Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates
-against- DUTCHESS as the place of
trial.
THE CIIILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, The basis of venue is:
Place of Business of
Defendants. Defendant
--------- ¬-------------X 10 Children's Way
Poughkeepsie, NY
To the above-named Defendant:
You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of
your answer, or, ifthe complaint is notserved with this essena, to serve a notice of appearance
on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the
day of service, where service is made by delivery upon u perseaply within the state,or, within
30 days after completion of service where service i ade in any oth.er manner. In case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgmcñ‡ will be take against you by defa itfor the relief demanded
in the complaint.
Dated: NEW YORK, NY
Aril 19, 2021
Ro e J. Gr stein, Esq.
E TEIN R, LLP
Attorney or Plaintiff
JANE DO - 19240
1825 Park venue
9th Floor
New York, 10035
(212) 685-8500
Our File No. 19240
1
1 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 INDEX NYSCEF:
RECEIVED NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AMJ
NYSCEF DOC, NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
..
..
TO:
THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
10 Children's Way
Poughkeepsie, NY
. .
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
22 Market Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
4
2 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
INDEX NO. 2021-51440
FILED
NYSCEF :
DOC. DUTCHESS
NO. 29 COUNTY CLERK 0 4 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
..
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_._ __ _ _ _.. _ _........------------X Index No.:
JANE DOE -
19240,
Plainti VERIFIED
-against-
COMPLAINT
THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS,
Defendants.
----____________ ---X
Plaintiff by her attorneys, GREENSTEIN & MILBAUER, LLP camplaining of the
Defbadsñts, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief:
From approximately 1978-1979, Plaintig then a minor, was sexually abused on multiple
occasions while a resident at The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie, a facility where the Plaintiffwas
placed by the Defendante County of Dutchess. Throughout the period in which the abuse occurred,
Defendants were generally negligent, in that the minor Plaintiff was negligently placed and retained
at The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie without the proper investigation, vetting, supervision and/or
oversight. Defendant Children's Home of Poughkeepsie negligently employed, supervised, and
retained employees, agents and/or representatives who allowed minor residents to
negligently
sexually abuse other minor residents. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's significant damages from
thatsexual abuse, described below. Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff's attorneys, states and alleges
as follows:
3
3 of 31
â€
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
202109/13/2021
514
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 S 0 * L ~04 0 2D ~ ~ 0222~ I
RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO,
NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
I'ARTIRS
A. P! aintiF
I. At alltimes material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a resident of The Children's Home ol
Poughkeepsie.
2. At aO times material, Plaintiff resided in the State of New York.
B, Defendants
3. Who~-.~'-r reference is made to any Defendant entity, such reference includes that entity, its
u~evm-
parent comp~mes, iuusiuial'ies, afGliates, pre~cess=.-.", and su>re«ors. In addition, v
reference is made to any act, deed, or trai»action of any entity,the allegation means that the entity
~ngageu in the act, deed, or transaction by or through itsofficers, directors, agents, employees, or
representatives while they were actively engaged in the manas.--"==", direction, control, or tr~~sac~un
of the entity's business or affairs.
4, The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie is a private, non-prost residential treatment facility
and school forchildren who have suffered abuse, neglect, and maltreatment,
At alltimes I~~at~;i~, The Children's Home of Poug~icepsie was aud continues to be an
u1 g~~izat'on and/or entity which includes, but isnot limited to, civil corporations, e"'~ion making
entities,officials, and employees, authorized Lo conduct --====,and
i~a=-i conducting business in the
State of New York with itsprincipal place of business a( Poughkeepsie, New York.
6. The Children's Home of Pougl~~ys'e is a domestic~ not-for profit corporation established in
or about 1847.
7. The Children's Horne of Poughkee~sie has several programs for at riskyouth including but
4 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 09/13/2021
2021-514 40
FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20/2021 08 : 20 AM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
not ILmited to, schools and other educational programs, residential treatment, and psychological
treatment The Children's Home of through its has complete control over
Poughkeepsie, officials,
those activities and programs inveiving children. The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie has the
power and authority to appoint, train, supervise, monitor, remove, and terminate each and every
person working with children within The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie.
8. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defedst County of Dutchess (hereinafter referred to as
"County") was and continues to be a governmental entity that was created and authorized under the
laws of the State ofNew York, with headquarters located at 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY
12601.
9. At alltimes herein mentioned, the County maintained and continues to maintain multiple
departments, including the Department of Community and Pamily Services (hereafter "DCFS").
DCFS is located at 60 Market St.,Poughkeepsie, NY 12601.
10. At alltimes herein mer4had, DCFS has been wholly operated, managed, maintained, and
controlled by Defendant County.
I1. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County DCFS has provided child welfare, including
foster care services,nutritional services, juvenile justice, and edneational services to Dutchess
County's children and families.
12. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County DCFS, subject to relevant laws and
regulations did operate, manage, and mairdained the authority and assumed the responsibility to
and oversee the welfare of minors for various reasons were adjudged to require non-
superviae, who,
familial domestic supervision and maintenance, including residential foster care and/or residential
treatment services.
5
5 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
[FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /_20/2021 08 : 2 O AM|
NYSCEF DOC, NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
JURISDICTION
Defendant'
13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. §301 as principal places of
business are in New York and beeáüse the unlawful conduct complained of herein occurred in New
York. .
14. Venue isproper pursuant to C.P.L.R. §503 in thatDutchess County is the principal place of
business of Defendant County and itsdepartment DCFS. In addition, many of the events giving rise
to this action occurred in Dutchess County,
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Background
15. Plaintiff resided at CHP from the time she was approximately 8-9 years old, from 1978-1979.
16. During Plaintiff's time at CHP, she was sexually assaüited by a much older resident who
resided in the same room.and cabin with Plaintiff
17. The sexual abuse began with kissing then progressed to fondling and eventually led to a
continual course of oral sex and eventually vaginal sexual contact.
18. CHP was aware or should have been aware of the serious problem of child sexual abuse
within its residential treatment facility and itsprograms.
19, At no time did CHP discipline, transfer or otherwise remove the older resident from Plaintiff's
room or cabin or report her to the proper governacñtal authorities.
20. At no time were any changes made in disciplinc, programming and/or supervision or
otherwise to protect Plaintiff from further abuse.
6
6 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-514 40
09/13/2021
[FILED : DÚTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20 AM)
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
21, CHP officials used their authority and/or power and influence to discourage and/or prevent
victims and their families from disclesing allegations of sexual abuse.
22. Plaintiff s relationship as a vulnerable child and resident at CHP, was one in which Plaintiff
was subject to the ongoing influence of Defendant CHP and Plaintiff s abusers.
B. Specific Allegations
23, Plaintiff was a severely neglected child with profound emotional problems who placed at
CHP.
24, Defendant CHP was in an in loco parentis re¼tionship with Plaintiff during the duration of
Plaintiff s residency at CHP.
25. Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was depcñdcat on Defendants County and DCFS,
their employees, agents, representatives and/or administrators to place her in a proper, safe and secure
foster facility and/or residcñtial treatment center. Plaintiff, as a minor and v-iñerable child, was fully
depêñdent on Defendants County, DCFS and CHP to meet all of her basic needs. Defêñdäüts County,
DCFS and CHP had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff and, therefore, had
responsibility for Plaintiff's welfare and authcrity over Plaintiff.
26. Plaintiff was placed in a position where the youngest and smallest resid were preyed upon
and sexually assaulted and abused older and more advanced residents of CHP.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST
DEFENDANT COUNTY
7
7 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF INDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
f TLED DOC.
: NO. 29
DÜTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20_AM RECEIVED 09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
27. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force
and effect as though set forth herein at length.
28, At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County and itsdepartment, DCFS, contracted with
various residential treatment facilities, including CHP, for children not able to safely remain at home.
29. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS were responsible for carrying out
fundamental duties when placiñg children in residential foster care and residential treatment facilities
by investigating the placement facilitypre-placemcñt, including but not limited to the background
and number of staff and complaints of child abuse and maltreatment.
30. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS were required to provide
reasonable supervision of the children they placed in residential foster care and residential treatment
facilities.
31, From approximately 1978-1979, Plaintiff was placed at CHP by Defendant County and
DCFS.
32. By accepting Plaintiff for placement, Defendant County and DCFS entered into a fiduciary
relationship with Plaintiff which ralationahip was implicated by placement at CHP.
33. As a result of Plaintiff's minority, and by Defendant County and DCFS's undertaldng to
provide for the welfare of vulnerable minor children such as the Plaintiff, Defendant County and
DCFS, held a position of,power and control over Plaintiff.
34. Defendant County and DCFS, by holding themselves out as being able to provide a safe
environment for children, solicited and/or accepted thisposition of power and control. This power
and control prevented the then minor Flaiñtiff from effectively protecting herself.
35. As a asult of the foregoing Defendant County and DCFS had a special relationship with and
8
8 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
ILED DOC.
NYSCEF NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
[F : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20 A
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
were responsible for the welfare of Plaintiff.
36. In lightof their superior knowledge about the risk of sexual abuse in CHP and/or recidential
foster homes and residentlal treatment programs, generally, and/or the risks that itsresidential foster
homes and/or residential treatment programs posed to minor children, Defendant County and DCFS
owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care.
37. Defendant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they solicited .
and encouraged youth and parents to place minor children in residential foster care and/or repdenne
treatment programs with which they contracted, including CHP.
38. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS undertook the counseling and
guidance of minor premat-1 their residential foster home and/or
children, including Plaintiff;
residcatial treatment program, including CHP, as being safe for children; held out their agents at CHP
as safe to work with children; and/or encouraged their agents at CHP to spend time with, counsel, and
interact with children in their residennal foster care and/residential treatment school for seglected
and/or troubled and abused children and/or residential treatment programs.
39. Defandant County and DCFS held out CHP as a safe envirañmêñt for children to work, study
and reside.
40. Deféñdant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because
Defendant County and DCFS's actions and inactions created a foresecable risk of harm to Plaintiff.
41. Defendant County and DCFS's breaches of their duties included, but were not limited to:
negligent investigation, screening, vetting, asscssment and meñitedag of CHP; negligent
investigation,sc-êêñing, vetting, assessment and mani+nting of minors placed at CHP; negligent
placement and retention of minors, includiñg Plaintiff at CHP; failure to acquire the amount and type
9
9 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 40
09/13/2021
2021-514
FILED : DUTCHE S S COUNTY CLERK 0 4 / 2 0 / 2021 08 : 26 AN|
NYSCEF DOC, NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
..
of information necessary to pmtect children residing at CHP from sexual abuse; failure to monitor
CHP's carapliäñce with the app'icable standard of care for child safety; failure to have sufficient
policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to properly implement the
policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to take reasonable measures to
make sure that the policies and procedures to prevcat child sexual abuse at CHP were effective and
working; failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse at CHP;
failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to properly train the workers at CHP
and their programs; failure to determinc whether employees at CHP were adequately trained to
identify signs of sexual abuse at CHP; failure to conduct periodic assessments, interviews and/or
investigatiom of the minors residing at CHP; failure in improperly relying on employees at CHP
and/or negligently relying on people who claimed that they could safely care for ehildren at CHP.
42. Defendant County and DCFS also breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff
and Plaintiff's family of the risk of child sexual abuse at CHP,
43. Defendant County and DCFS also failed to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family about
knowledge that they had about child sexual abuse at CHP.
44. By placing children at CHP Defendant County and DCFS, through their employees, agents or
representatives affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that this foster care
institution and/or residential treatment facility did not pose a threat to children,
45. Defendant County and DCFS induced Plaintiff to rely on these representations and the minor
children and their families did rely on them.
46. At a minimum, any reasonable and prudent goverrseñtel ageticy would have conducted a
thorough investigation of the prevalence and occurrence of child sexual abuse at CHP.
10
10 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF
IFILE DOC.
D : DUTCHE
NO. 29 SS COUN_TY CLERK 04 /20/2021 08 : 20 W RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
47. At no point in time did any employee, agent, and/or representative of Defendant County and
DCFS attempt to investigate CHP and the child sexual abuse of Plaintiff.
48. Defendant County and DCFS failed in their legal duty to report known and/or suspected
sexual abuse of children to the proper governmental authorities,
49. In failing that duty, the predatory sexual abuse of Plaintiff by another older resident was
allowed to take place and permitted to oontinue at CHP,
50. Defendant County and DCFS failed to provide the accessary monitoring of minors they
placed at CHP, including Plaintiff, and failed to recognize warning signs that Plaintiff and other
minor residents were being sexually abused at CHP.
51. Defendant County and DCFS provided an inconipkte, inadequate, and unacceptable child
protective response at CHP,
52. Defendant County and DCFS failed to adequately document reports of sexual abuse at CHP
which would have led to investigations.
53. Defendant County and DCFS lack of thorough follow up reports of sexual abuse at CHP were
major contributing factors to the ongoing sexual abuse at the facility.
54. Defendant County and DCFS lack of thorough follow up reports of sexual abuse at CHP
proximately caused the ongoing sexual abuse at the facility.
55. Defendant and DCFS systematic policy choices limited the amount of staffing,
County
resources, and available training that would have prevented widespread abuse in foster care
institutions and/or residential treatment facilitiessuch as CHP.
56. These systematic policy chaices emhadied a quintessential deliberate indifference to the plight
and suffering of vulnerable children placed in residendal foster care and/or residential treatment
11
11 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF
fË'ILED DOC.
: DUTCHESS
NO. 29 COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08 : 2 O AM| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
facilities such as CHP.
57. Defendant County and DCFS knew and/or reasonably should have known, and/or covered up,
the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of certain older residents, who sexually abused
Plaintiff at CHP.
58, Defendant County and DCFS had the responsibility to oversee, control and/or monitor minor
residents at residential foster homes and/or residendal treatment facilities such as CHP in order to
prevent child sexual abuse flum occurring.
59, As a direct result of the negligence of Defendant County and DCFS, Plaintiff snatained
physical, emotional, and psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering. The sexual abuse and
resulting injuries to Plaintiff were caused solely and wholly by reason of the negligent failures of
Defendant County and DCFS.
AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST
DEFENDANT CHP
60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force
and effect as though set forth herein at length,
61. Defendant CHP had a special relationship with Plaintiff and other minor residents at CHP.
The special relationship existed because of the high degree of vulnerability of the children entrusted
in theircare. As a result of thishigh degree of and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such
vulnerability
a special relationship, Defendant had a duty to establish measures of protection of children not
necessiuy for perscus who are older aud better able to safcgüârd themselves,
62, Arising from the special reladonship with Plaintiff, Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of
12
12 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
[F_ILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 0 4 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AMI
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff from physical and emotional injuries.
63. Arising from the special reledonship with Plaintiff,Deféñdant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of
reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable criminal misconduct, including child sexual
abuse.
64. Arising from the special reladonship with Plaintiff,Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of
reasonable care to conduct a reasonable pre-àM assessment and/or investigation of prospective
minor residents,
65. Arising from the special relationship that existed with Plaintiff and other residents who were
young, innocent, and vulnerable children, Defendard CHP also had a duty to properly train and
supervise its employees, agents, representatives, and edmkimators to identify signs of child sexual
abuse by other minor residents.
66. Arising from the special relationship Defedant CHP had with the child residerds in itsfacility
and the degree of control Defeñdant asistained of minor residents in itsfacility Defendant CHP had
a duty to adequately supervise, monitor and control the minor residents and to prevent them from
sexually abusing other child residents.
67. Arising from the special relationship Defendant CHP had with the child residents in itsfacility
and the degree of control Defendant maintained of the minor residente in its Defeñdâñt CHP
facility
had a duty to adequately supervise the minor residents and to prevent them from sexually abusing
other child residents.
68. Defendant CHP owed a to Plaintiff from itscare and coñtrol of minor residents
duty arising
and the in loco parentis relationship ittredñtaiñed with such residcñts to exercise reasonable care to
ensure that they were not sexually molested and abused.
13
13 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. DUTCHESS
NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-514 40
09/13/2021
FILED COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM|
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
69. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of reusuu&ble care because itsolicited youth by and
through their commn and psychiatric social and other
parents, family courts, y workers, community
resources for participationin their youth programs; encouraged youth and referral sources to have the
youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff;
promoted theirfacilities and programs as being safe for children; and, held out other minor residents
at the facility who abused Plaintiff as safe to work and reside with other with children.
70, By accepting custody ofthe minor Plaintiff, Defendant CHP established an in loco parentis
relationship with Plaintiff from which arose a duty to protect Plaintiff fi·om injury. Defendant CHP
êñtered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaldñg the custody, supervision of, and/or
care ofthe minor Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff s minority and Defendant CHP's undertaking the
care and guidance of the Plaintiff, Defendant CHP held a position of power over Plaintiff Further,
Defendant CHP, by holding itself out as being able to provide and actually providing a safe
environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this pesition of power. Defendant CHP, through
their employees, agents, and/or representatives exploited this power over Plaintiff and, thereby, put
Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse.
71. By the above-stated actions, Defendant CHP assumed and/or created an express and/or
implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for Plaintiff
along with other minor residents who participated in their pmgrams. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a
duty to properly oversee and supervise Plaintiff's care to picycñt harm from. foresceãble dangers.
Defendant CHP had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under their control as a
reasonably prudent parent would have exercised under similar circumstances.
14
14 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF
(FILED DOC.
: NO. 29
DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04(2 O /2021 08 : 20 W RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF:
NO. 2021-51440
09/13/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021
72. By establishing and operating CHP, which offered residential and other services to vulnerable
children, and by accepting the cnreiliñcñt and participation of the minor Plaintiff as a participant in its
Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021 "A" EXHIBIT FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 INDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 FfLED NYSCEF DOC. : NO. DUTCHESS29 COUNTY CLERK 04/_220/2021 08: 20 AM| RECEIVED 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Index No.: COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ----------------------------------------X SUMMONS JANE DOE - 19240, Plaintiff, Plaintiff designates -against- DUTCHESS as the place of trial. THE CIIILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, The basis of venue is: Place of Business of Defendants. Defendant --------- ¬-------------X 10 Children's Way Poughkeepsie, NY To the above-named Defendant: You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your answer, or, ifthe complaint is notserved with this essena, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon u perseaply within the state,or, within 30 days after completion of service where service i ade in any oth.er manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgmcñ‡ will be take against you by defa itfor the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: NEW YORK, NY Aril 19, 2021 Ro e J. Gr stein, Esq. E TEIN R, LLP Attorney or Plaintiff JANE DO - 19240 1825 Park venue 9th Floor New York, 10035 (212) 685-8500 Our File No. 19240 1 1 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 INDEX NYSCEF: RECEIVED NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AMJ NYSCEF DOC, NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 .. .. TO: THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE 10 Children's Way Poughkeepsie, NY . . COUNTY OF DUTCHESS 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 4 2 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 INDEX NO. 2021-51440 FILED NYSCEF : DOC. DUTCHESS NO. 29 COUNTY CLERK 0 4 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AM) RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 .. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS _._ __ _ _ _.. _ _........------------X Index No.: JANE DOE - 19240, Plainti VERIFIED -against- COMPLAINT THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS, Defendants. ----____________ ---X Plaintiff by her attorneys, GREENSTEIN & MILBAUER, LLP camplaining of the Defbadsñts, respectfully alleges, upon information and belief: From approximately 1978-1979, Plaintig then a minor, was sexually abused on multiple occasions while a resident at The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie, a facility where the Plaintiffwas placed by the Defendante County of Dutchess. Throughout the period in which the abuse occurred, Defendants were generally negligent, in that the minor Plaintiff was negligently placed and retained at The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie without the proper investigation, vetting, supervision and/or oversight. Defendant Children's Home of Poughkeepsie negligently employed, supervised, and retained employees, agents and/or representatives who allowed minor residents to negligently sexually abuse other minor residents. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's significant damages from thatsexual abuse, described below. Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff's attorneys, states and alleges as follows: 3 3 of 31 †FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 202109/13/2021 514 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 S 0 * L ~04 0 2D ~ ~ 0222~ I RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO, NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 I'ARTIRS A. P! aintiF I. At alltimes material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a resident of The Children's Home ol Poughkeepsie. 2. At aO times material, Plaintiff resided in the State of New York. B, Defendants 3. Who~-.~'-r reference is made to any Defendant entity, such reference includes that entity, its u~evm- parent comp~mes, iuusiuial'ies, afGliates, pre~cess=.-.", and su>re«ors. In addition, v reference is made to any act, deed, or trai»action of any entity,the allegation means that the entity ~ngageu in the act, deed, or transaction by or through itsofficers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives while they were actively engaged in the manas.--"==", direction, control, or tr~~sac~un of the entity's business or affairs. 4, The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie is a private, non-prost residential treatment facility and school forchildren who have suffered abuse, neglect, and maltreatment, At alltimes I~~at~;i~, The Children's Home of Poug~icepsie was aud continues to be an u1 g~~izat'on and/or entity which includes, but isnot limited to, civil corporations, e"'~ion making entities,officials, and employees, authorized Lo conduct --====,and i~a=-i conducting business in the State of New York with itsprincipal place of business a( Poughkeepsie, New York. 6. The Children's Home of Pougl~~ys'e is a domestic~ not-for profit corporation established in or about 1847. 7. The Children's Horne of Poughkee~sie has several programs for at riskyouth including but 4 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 09/13/2021 2021-514 40 FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20/2021 08 : 20 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 not ILmited to, schools and other educational programs, residential treatment, and psychological treatment The Children's Home of through its has complete control over Poughkeepsie, officials, those activities and programs inveiving children. The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie has the power and authority to appoint, train, supervise, monitor, remove, and terminate each and every person working with children within The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie. 8. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defedst County of Dutchess (hereinafter referred to as "County") was and continues to be a governmental entity that was created and authorized under the laws of the State ofNew York, with headquarters located at 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY 12601. 9. At alltimes herein mentioned, the County maintained and continues to maintain multiple departments, including the Department of Community and Pamily Services (hereafter "DCFS"). DCFS is located at 60 Market St.,Poughkeepsie, NY 12601. 10. At alltimes herein mer4had, DCFS has been wholly operated, managed, maintained, and controlled by Defendant County. I1. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County DCFS has provided child welfare, including foster care services,nutritional services, juvenile justice, and edneational services to Dutchess County's children and families. 12. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County DCFS, subject to relevant laws and regulations did operate, manage, and mairdained the authority and assumed the responsibility to and oversee the welfare of minors for various reasons were adjudged to require non- superviae, who, familial domestic supervision and maintenance, including residential foster care and/or residential treatment services. 5 5 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 [FILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /_20/2021 08 : 2 O AM| NYSCEF DOC, NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 JURISDICTION Defendant' 13. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. §301 as principal places of business are in New York and beeáüse the unlawful conduct complained of herein occurred in New York. . 14. Venue isproper pursuant to C.P.L.R. §503 in thatDutchess County is the principal place of business of Defendant County and itsdepartment DCFS. In addition, many of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Dutchess County, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Background 15. Plaintiff resided at CHP from the time she was approximately 8-9 years old, from 1978-1979. 16. During Plaintiff's time at CHP, she was sexually assaüited by a much older resident who resided in the same room.and cabin with Plaintiff 17. The sexual abuse began with kissing then progressed to fondling and eventually led to a continual course of oral sex and eventually vaginal sexual contact. 18. CHP was aware or should have been aware of the serious problem of child sexual abuse within its residential treatment facility and itsprograms. 19, At no time did CHP discipline, transfer or otherwise remove the older resident from Plaintiff's room or cabin or report her to the proper governacñtal authorities. 20. At no time were any changes made in disciplinc, programming and/or supervision or otherwise to protect Plaintiff from further abuse. 6 6 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-514 40 09/13/2021 [FILED : DÚTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20 AM) NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 21, CHP officials used their authority and/or power and influence to discourage and/or prevent victims and their families from disclesing allegations of sexual abuse. 22. Plaintiff s relationship as a vulnerable child and resident at CHP, was one in which Plaintiff was subject to the ongoing influence of Defendant CHP and Plaintiff s abusers. B. Specific Allegations 23, Plaintiff was a severely neglected child with profound emotional problems who placed at CHP. 24, Defendant CHP was in an in loco parentis re¼tionship with Plaintiff during the duration of Plaintiff s residency at CHP. 25. Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was depcñdcat on Defendants County and DCFS, their employees, agents, representatives and/or administrators to place her in a proper, safe and secure foster facility and/or residcñtial treatment center. Plaintiff, as a minor and v-iñerable child, was fully depêñdent on Defendants County, DCFS and CHP to meet all of her basic needs. Defêñdäüts County, DCFS and CHP had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff and, therefore, had responsibility for Plaintiff's welfare and authcrity over Plaintiff. 26. Plaintiff was placed in a position where the youngest and smallest resid were preyed upon and sexually assaulted and abused older and more advanced residents of CHP. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY 7 7 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF INDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 f TLED DOC. : NO. 29 DÜTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20_AM RECEIVED 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 27. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length. 28, At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County and itsdepartment, DCFS, contracted with various residential treatment facilities, including CHP, for children not able to safely remain at home. 29. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS were responsible for carrying out fundamental duties when placiñg children in residential foster care and residential treatment facilities by investigating the placement facilitypre-placemcñt, including but not limited to the background and number of staff and complaints of child abuse and maltreatment. 30. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS were required to provide reasonable supervision of the children they placed in residential foster care and residential treatment facilities. 31, From approximately 1978-1979, Plaintiff was placed at CHP by Defendant County and DCFS. 32. By accepting Plaintiff for placement, Defendant County and DCFS entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff which ralationahip was implicated by placement at CHP. 33. As a result of Plaintiff's minority, and by Defendant County and DCFS's undertaldng to provide for the welfare of vulnerable minor children such as the Plaintiff, Defendant County and DCFS, held a position of,power and control over Plaintiff. 34. Defendant County and DCFS, by holding themselves out as being able to provide a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted thisposition of power and control. This power and control prevented the then minor Flaiñtiff from effectively protecting herself. 35. As a asult of the foregoing Defendant County and DCFS had a special relationship with and 8 8 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 ILED DOC. NYSCEF NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 [F : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04 /20 /2021 08 : 20 A NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 were responsible for the welfare of Plaintiff. 36. In lightof their superior knowledge about the risk of sexual abuse in CHP and/or recidential foster homes and residentlal treatment programs, generally, and/or the risks that itsresidential foster homes and/or residential treatment programs posed to minor children, Defendant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care. 37. Defendant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care because they solicited . and encouraged youth and parents to place minor children in residential foster care and/or repdenne treatment programs with which they contracted, including CHP. 38. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS undertook the counseling and guidance of minor premat-1 their residential foster home and/or children, including Plaintiff; residcatial treatment program, including CHP, as being safe for children; held out their agents at CHP as safe to work with children; and/or encouraged their agents at CHP to spend time with, counsel, and interact with children in their residennal foster care and/residential treatment school for seglected and/or troubled and abused children and/or residential treatment programs. 39. Defandant County and DCFS held out CHP as a safe envirañmêñt for children to work, study and reside. 40. Deféñdant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because Defendant County and DCFS's actions and inactions created a foresecable risk of harm to Plaintiff. 41. Defendant County and DCFS's breaches of their duties included, but were not limited to: negligent investigation, screening, vetting, asscssment and meñitedag of CHP; negligent investigation,sc-êêñing, vetting, assessment and mani+nting of minors placed at CHP; negligent placement and retention of minors, includiñg Plaintiff at CHP; failure to acquire the amount and type 9 9 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 40 09/13/2021 2021-514 FILED : DUTCHE S S COUNTY CLERK 0 4 / 2 0 / 2021 08 : 26 AN| NYSCEF DOC, NO, 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 .. of information necessary to pmtect children residing at CHP from sexual abuse; failure to monitor CHP's carapliäñce with the app'icable standard of care for child safety; failure to have sufficient policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to properly implement the policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to take reasonable measures to make sure that the policies and procedures to prevcat child sexual abuse at CHP were effective and working; failure to adequately inform families and children of the risks of child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to investigate risks of child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to properly train the workers at CHP and their programs; failure to determinc whether employees at CHP were adequately trained to identify signs of sexual abuse at CHP; failure to conduct periodic assessments, interviews and/or investigatiom of the minors residing at CHP; failure in improperly relying on employees at CHP and/or negligently relying on people who claimed that they could safely care for ehildren at CHP. 42. Defendant County and DCFS also breached their duties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family of the risk of child sexual abuse at CHP, 43. Defendant County and DCFS also failed to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family about knowledge that they had about child sexual abuse at CHP. 44. By placing children at CHP Defendant County and DCFS, through their employees, agents or representatives affirmatively represented to minor children and their families that this foster care institution and/or residential treatment facility did not pose a threat to children, 45. Defendant County and DCFS induced Plaintiff to rely on these representations and the minor children and their families did rely on them. 46. At a minimum, any reasonable and prudent goverrseñtel ageticy would have conducted a thorough investigation of the prevalence and occurrence of child sexual abuse at CHP. 10 10 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF IFILE DOC. D : DUTCHE NO. 29 SS COUN_TY CLERK 04 /20/2021 08 : 20 W RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 47. At no point in time did any employee, agent, and/or representative of Defendant County and DCFS attempt to investigate CHP and the child sexual abuse of Plaintiff. 48. Defendant County and DCFS failed in their legal duty to report known and/or suspected sexual abuse of children to the proper governmental authorities, 49. In failing that duty, the predatory sexual abuse of Plaintiff by another older resident was allowed to take place and permitted to oontinue at CHP, 50. Defendant County and DCFS failed to provide the accessary monitoring of minors they placed at CHP, including Plaintiff, and failed to recognize warning signs that Plaintiff and other minor residents were being sexually abused at CHP. 51. Defendant County and DCFS provided an inconipkte, inadequate, and unacceptable child protective response at CHP, 52. Defendant County and DCFS failed to adequately document reports of sexual abuse at CHP which would have led to investigations. 53. Defendant County and DCFS lack of thorough follow up reports of sexual abuse at CHP were major contributing factors to the ongoing sexual abuse at the facility. 54. Defendant County and DCFS lack of thorough follow up reports of sexual abuse at CHP proximately caused the ongoing sexual abuse at the facility. 55. Defendant and DCFS systematic policy choices limited the amount of staffing, County resources, and available training that would have prevented widespread abuse in foster care institutions and/or residential treatment facilitiessuch as CHP. 56. These systematic policy chaices emhadied a quintessential deliberate indifference to the plight and suffering of vulnerable children placed in residendal foster care and/or residential treatment 11 11 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF fË'ILED DOC. : DUTCHESS NO. 29 COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08 : 2 O AM| RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 facilities such as CHP. 57. Defendant County and DCFS knew and/or reasonably should have known, and/or covered up, the inappropriate and unlawful sexual activities of certain older residents, who sexually abused Plaintiff at CHP. 58, Defendant County and DCFS had the responsibility to oversee, control and/or monitor minor residents at residential foster homes and/or residendal treatment facilities such as CHP in order to prevent child sexual abuse flum occurring. 59, As a direct result of the negligence of Defendant County and DCFS, Plaintiff snatained physical, emotional, and psychological injuries, along with pain and suffering. The sexual abuse and resulting injuries to Plaintiff were caused solely and wholly by reason of the negligent failures of Defendant County and DCFS. AS AND FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT CHP 60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as though set forth herein at length, 61. Defendant CHP had a special relationship with Plaintiff and other minor residents at CHP. The special relationship existed because of the high degree of vulnerability of the children entrusted in theircare. As a result of thishigh degree of and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such vulnerability a special relationship, Defendant had a duty to establish measures of protection of children not necessiuy for perscus who are older aud better able to safcgüârd themselves, 62, Arising from the special reladonship with Plaintiff, Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of 12 12 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 [F_ILED : DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 0 4 /20 /2021 08 : 2 O AMI NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 reasonable care to protect the Plaintiff from physical and emotional injuries. 63. Arising from the special reledonship with Plaintiff,Deféñdant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable criminal misconduct, including child sexual abuse. 64. Arising from the special reladonship with Plaintiff,Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to conduct a reasonable pre-àM assessment and/or investigation of prospective minor residents, 65. Arising from the special relationship that existed with Plaintiff and other residents who were young, innocent, and vulnerable children, Defendard CHP also had a duty to properly train and supervise its employees, agents, representatives, and edmkimators to identify signs of child sexual abuse by other minor residents. 66. Arising from the special relationship Defedant CHP had with the child residerds in itsfacility and the degree of control Defeñdant asistained of minor residents in itsfacility Defendant CHP had a duty to adequately supervise, monitor and control the minor residents and to prevent them from sexually abusing other child residents. 67. Arising from the special relationship Defendant CHP had with the child residents in itsfacility and the degree of control Defendant maintained of the minor residente in its Defeñdâñt CHP facility had a duty to adequately supervise the minor residents and to prevent them from sexually abusing other child residents. 68. Defendant CHP owed a to Plaintiff from itscare and coñtrol of minor residents duty arising and the in loco parentis relationship ittredñtaiñed with such residcñts to exercise reasonable care to ensure that they were not sexually molested and abused. 13 13 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF DOC. DUTCHESS NO. 29 RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-514 40 09/13/2021 FILED COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM| NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 69. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of reusuu&ble care because itsolicited youth by and through their commn and psychiatric social and other parents, family courts, y workers, community resources for participationin their youth programs; encouraged youth and referral sources to have the youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted theirfacilities and programs as being safe for children; and, held out other minor residents at the facility who abused Plaintiff as safe to work and reside with other with children. 70, By accepting custody ofthe minor Plaintiff, Defendant CHP established an in loco parentis relationship with Plaintiff from which arose a duty to protect Plaintiff fi·om injury. Defendant CHP êñtered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaldñg the custody, supervision of, and/or care ofthe minor Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff s minority and Defendant CHP's undertaking the care and guidance of the Plaintiff, Defendant CHP held a position of power over Plaintiff Further, Defendant CHP, by holding itself out as being able to provide and actually providing a safe environment for children, solicited and/or accepted this pesition of power. Defendant CHP, through their employees, agents, and/or representatives exploited this power over Plaintiff and, thereby, put Plaintiff at risk for sexual abuse. 71. By the above-stated actions, Defendant CHP assumed and/or created an express and/or implied duty to properly supervise Plaintiff and provide a reasonably safe environment for Plaintiff along with other minor residents who participated in their pmgrams. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty to properly oversee and supervise Plaintiff's care to picycñt harm from. foresceãble dangers. Defendant CHP had the duty to exercise the same degree of care over minors under their control as a reasonably prudent parent would have exercised under similar circumstances. 14 14 of 31 FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 09/13/2021 02:55 PM INDEX NO. 2021-51440 NYSCEF (FILED DOC. : NO. 29 DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04(2 O /2021 08 : 20 W RECEIVEDINDEX NYSCEF: NO. 2021-51440 09/13/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021 72. By establishing and operating CHP, which offered residential and other services to vulnerable children, and by accepting the cnreiliñcñt and participation of the minor Plaintiff as a participant in its