Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
---------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS
TISHA SOLOMON,
Index No.
Plaintiff,
Date Purchased:
-against-
Plaintiffs designate BRONX
COUNTY as place of trial
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES Basis of Venue: CPLR § 504(3)
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE and
SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
a/k/a/ BRIDGES JUVENILE CENTER,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------X
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance on the plaintiff’s attorneys within twenty (20) days after service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summons
is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to
appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
The venue and location for trial is Bronx County. The basis of venue is where the cause of
action arose.
Dated: New York, New York
April 29, 2024
Yours etc.,
LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
/s/ Madeleine L. Skaller
Madeleine L. Skaller, Esq.
605 Third Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10158
(212) 605-6200
mskaller@levylaw.com
1 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
Defendants’ Addresses
CITY OF NEW YORK
150 William Street
New York, NY 10038
NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
150 William Street
NEW YORK, NY 10038
SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER
150 William Street
New York, NY 10038
2 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BRONX
----------------------------------------------------------------X
TISHA SOLOMON, VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE and SPOFFORD
JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER a/k/a/ BRIDGES
JUVENILE CENTER,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff Tisha Solomon, by and through her attorneys, Levy Konigsberg LLP, alleges for
her Complaint the following:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The Spofford Juvenile Detention Center (“Spofford”) was a notorious juvenile detention
facility operated by the City of New York from the late 1950s until its closure in 2011. At
Spofford, children were treated inhumanely in all respects, and this included rampant
sexual abuse of juvenile detainees by correctional officers and staff members. Due to the
City’s policy of locking up children for relatively minor violations or behavioral problems,
many children who simply needed help went straight from difficult home lives into a
traumatizing, prisonlike environment where they were regularly sexually abused. Despite
widespread reports, investigations, and campaigns to close the facility dating back to at
least the 1960s, the City of New York allowed Spofford’s culture of sexual abuse and
brutality to continue unabated.
3 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
2. In around 2007, a female staff member at Spofford abused the power of her position and
sexually abused Plaintiff, a child under the age of eighteen detained at Spofford Juvenile
Detention Facility.
3. Plaintiff suffered physical, psychological, and other injuries as a result of conduct which
would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law
committed against a child less than eighteen years of age.
4. The emotional and psychological trauma associated with the sexual abuse she suffered at
Spofford has haunted Plaintiff for her entire life. She has been and remains traumatized
and damaged as a result of the acts alleged herein. The abuse by the female staff member
(“PERPETRATOR”), and the failures of Defendants to protect Plaintiff, have left Plaintiff
deeply emotionally scarred and damaged.
5. With the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff joins the dozens of other survivors of sexual
abuse at Spofford Juvenile Detention Center who have filed, or will be filing, separate
complaints under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. Each of these
other plaintiffs was sexually abused by the guards, counselors, and other staff members
who were supposed to be watching out for them. The abuse endured by these plaintiffs
stretches across decades. Similar abuse of children at New York City’s other juvenile
detention facilities continues to this day.
6. This complaint is filed pursuant to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection
Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101, et seq., because it pertains to intentional or negligent
acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injuries suffered as a
result of at least one crime of violence motivated by gender.
4 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
7. On January 9, 2022, an amendment to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence
Protection Law, under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-11-1, et. seq., was enacted by the New
York City Council. This law allows survivors of gender-motivated violence whose claims
were previously time-barred to file a lawsuit against their abusers and institutions that
directed, enabled, participated in, and/or conspired to commit a crime of violence
motivated by gender during a two-year “look-back-period” and extends the original
statutory filing period to nine years. The two-year look back window took effect on March
1, 2023. The new amendment temporarily lifts the statute of limitations on civil cases
involving gender-based violence. During the look-back window, victims and survivors of
violence perpetrated on the basis of gender can recover damages from their abusers, even
if it has been years or decades since the assault(s). This look-back window ends February
28, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is timely, and it is properly filed under New York
N.Y.C. Admin Code § 10-1101, et seq., (Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection
Law).
8. As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff asserts state law claims for Violation of the
Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, negligence, negligent hiring,
retention, training and supervision, and breach of statutory duty to report abuse under
Social Services Law §§ 413 and 420.
9. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries she has suffered, as well
as reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of bringing this action.
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York in Kings County.
5 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
11. Defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter, “CITY”), is a political subdivision of the
State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was and is responsible
for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY. CITY is a
citizen of the State of New York.
12. Defendant, NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES
f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”), is a department
of Defendant CITY. It is authorized by New York law to care for children in juvenile
detention in New York City. Upon information and belief, the New York City Department
of Juvenile Justice which was responsible for the CITY’s juvenile detention centers was
merged into ACS in 2010. Children in juvenile detention are in the legal custody of the
Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention
are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a
principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038.
ACS is a citizen of the State of New York.
13. Defendants CITY and ACS operate and/or operated the following juvenile detention
facilities that house and/or housed detained youth in the juvenile justice system:
a. Spofford Juvenile Detention Center (renamed Bridges Juvenile Detention Center in
1999), a co-ed facility located at 1221 Spofford Avenue, Bronx, NY 10474;
b. Horizon Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 560 Brook Avenue
Bronx, NY 10455;
c. Crossroad Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 17 Bristol Street
Brooklyn, NY 11212;
6 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
d. Riker’s Island, which is comprised of several facilities that including Rose M.
Singer Center, an all-female facility located at 19-19 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst,
NY 11360; Anna M. Kross Center, an all-male facility located at 18-18 Hazen
Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Robert N. Davoren Center, an all-male facility
located at 11-11 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Eric M. Taylor Center, a
facility located at 10-10 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; and Otis Bantum
Correctional Center, a facility located at 16-00 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY
11370;
e. Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center, a prison barge anchored in the East River;
14. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant SPOFFORD JUVENILE
DETENTION CENTER (hereinafter referred to as “SPOFFORD”) was a juvenile
detention facility located in the Bronx, New York that was owned, operated, maintained
and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant CITY because is a political
subdivision of the State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was
responsible for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY,
including but not limited to Spofford Juvenile Detention Center. CITY is a citizen of the
State of New York.
16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ACS because it is a department of
Defendant CITY. Defendant ACS is authorized by New York City to care for children in
juvenile detention in New York City. Children in foster care are in the legal custody of the
Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention
7 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a
principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038.
ACS is a citizen of the State of New York.
17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SPOFFORD because it was a juvenile
detention facility located in the Bronx, New York that was owned, operated, maintained
and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS.
18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages
Plaintiff seeks exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise
have jurisdiction.
19. Venue is proper in Bronx County pursuant to CPLR §§ 503(a), 504(3), and 505(a), because
all, or virtually all, of Defendants’ acts and omissions, as well as the sexual abuse of
Plaintiff, occurred in the Bronx.
FACTS
A. History and Tolerance of Gender-Motivated Sexual Abuse at Juvenile Detention
Facilities Run by Defendants CITY and ACS
20. For decades, children detained in juvenile detention facilities operated by CITY and ACS
have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of guards, counselors, and other agents of the CITY
and ACS, all while Defendants have had knowledge of, and turned a blind eye to, this
culture of abuse.1 The sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities operated by the CITY
and ACS has ranged from inappropriate strip searches to rape using violent physical force.2
The CITY and ACS agents have had, and continue to have, inappropriate and criminal
1
See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2008-09 (Jan. 2010), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf.
2
See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 15 (Jan. 2011), available at
https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf.
8 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
sexual relationships with children at CITY and ACS facilities, oftentimes involving bribery
and grooming. Children detained in CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities are
regularly offered contraband—such as cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol—or privileges in
exchange for sexual favors.3 The pervasive and persistent abuse, including sexual abuse,
at CITY and ACS facilities has been publicly reported on for decades. The culture of abuse
nonetheless continues to be a reality for children detained in CITY and ACS facilities to
this day.
21. Children who are sexually abused in CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities rarely file
grievances against staff due to fear of retaliation or knowing that they will not be believed.4
Children at CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities know that they cannot trust facility
staff, who regularly engage in physical abuse of the children charged to their care.5 When
they do witness or learn of sexual assaults, staff members at CITY and ACS juvenile
detention facilities look the other way and allow it to continue.6 Sexual abuse at CITY and
ACS juvenile detention facilities therefore goes severely underreported.7
22. According to a 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Justice, 13% percent of youth in
juvenile facilities are sexually abused, most often by the staff of the facility.8
3
See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2008-09 at 14 (Jan. 2010), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf.
4
See Jana Allen et. al., ‘It’s never OK’: Sexual abuse persists in juvenile facilities despite years of reform,
Kids Imprisoned – News21, (Aug. 21, 2020) available at https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/sexual-assault-
juvenile-detention-facilities/
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
See Robert W. Dumond, The Impact of Prisoner Sexual Violence: Challenges of Implementing Public Law
108-79 – The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 32 J. LEGIS. 142, 147 (2006) (“To fully understand the
implications of the BJS study, one must recognize that of all categories of crime, rape and sexual violence are
known to be one of the most underreported, making an accurate assessment of its occurrence difficult.”).
8
Jeremy Travis, Reflections on Juvenile Justice Reform in New York, 56 N.Y.L.S. Law Rev. 1318 at 1322
(2011-12) available at
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=nyls_law_review; Melissa Sickmund,
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997–2008 (2010), available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229379.pdf.
9 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
23. In 2008-09, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study that found that 88% of youth
who reported staff sexual misconduct reported more than one incident, with 27% reporting
more than ten.9
24. In another study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice that examined substantiated
instances of sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities between 2013 and 2018 found that
most juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children faced no legal repercussions
for their actions.10
25. This study found that more than 27% of children who were abused by staff were subject to
actions that could be viewed as punishment, such as being issued a disciplinary report,
losing privileges, being placed in a separate housing unit, or confined to their cell or room.11
26. The study also concluded that the majority of the cases involving staff victimizing youth
were more serious in nature: 68% involved sexual misconduct, which the study defined as
indecent exposure, intentionally touching sexual areas, and actions up through completed
sexual acts.
27. While the U.S. Department of Justice Report focused on substantiated reports of sexual
abuse, experts in the field note that “only a minuscule percentage of the overall incidents
of sexual abuse [are reported]; most kids in custody who endure abuse don't speak out, and
those who do usually see their reports go nowhere.”12
9
See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 6 (Jan. 2011), available at
https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf.
10
See Emily D. Buehler, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Substantiated Incidents of Sexual Victimization Reported by
Juvenile Justice Authorities, 2013–2018 (Mar. 2023) available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/sisvrjja1318.pdf
11
Id.
12
See Tami Abdollah, Juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children face few legal sanctions,
study says, USA Today, (Apr. 1, 2023) available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/04/01/most-
juvenile-detention-staff-who-abused-children-faced-no-legal-action/11571406002/
10 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
28. Defendants were aware that sexual abuse of children by facility staff was a persistent and
prevalent problem in their juvenile detention facilities, including SPOFFORD. For
decades, Defendants have been made aware of the ongoing sexual abuse of children in their
care through the investigations and reports by the CITY’s own task force, by the U.S.
Department of Justice, studies by third parties, allegations by children at SPOFFORD, and
criminal proceedings against their employees and agents.
29. Documented and publicized abuse, and reports of conditions known to be likely to lead to
abuse, at SPOFFORD facilities include:
a. In November 1969, State Senator John Dunne demanded a meeting with then mayor
John Lindsay to discuss the “horrible” conditions at SPOFFORD and other juvenile
detention facilities. Senator Dunne undertook efforts to investigate charges of
“brutality, sexual abuse and drug smuggling” at SPOFFORD.13
b. In July 1970, a probe into SPOFFORD was court-order following charges of drug
trafficking and sexual abuse.14
c. In August 1970, a city council member called for the resignation of several high
ranking official in the CITY’s juvenile justice system after he visited SPOFFORD
and saw firsthand the “filth and degradation” there. The city council member
alleged in a lawsuit, after conducting over 400 hours of interviews with youth
detainees, SPOFFORD employees, and childcare experts, that there was illicit drug
13
Judson Hand, Dunne & Lindsay to Meet On the Jammed Kid Jails, Daily News, (Nov. 29, 1969), available
at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/395370866/?terms=%22spofford%22%20%22sexual%20abuse%22%20%22yo
uth%22%20&match=1.
14
Thomas Poster, Judges Order Probe of City’s Youth Homes, Daily News (Jul. 23, 1970) available at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/464467866/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22
youth%22&match=1.
11 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
trafficking, inappropriate sexual conduct, and “widespread physical brutality” at
SPOFFORD.15
d. In February 1978, a SPOFFORD guard was arrested after a 14-year old detainee
was raped by two other detainees and the guard “locked the doors for privacy” and
walked away to permit the rape to continue.16 Following this attack, a city official
stated that: “It is our information that youngsters are assaulted sexually and
physically in other parts of [SPOFFORD], like in the dormitories, and we know of
no counselors arrested because they failed to prevent these incidents.”17
e. In 1978, a commission appointed by then-mayor Ed Koch called SPOFFORD
“a case study in failure,” concluding that the only solution was to shut it
down. 18
f. In 1996, a counselor at SPOFFORD was fired for shackling a 15-year-old girl’s
hands and feet and molesting her.19
g. In 1997, there were 48 child-abuse claims made against Spofford employees,
including one instance where a counselor was convicted of attempted assault after
beating a boy nearly to death. The counselor was never sentenced and continued to
be on the city’s payroll. 20
15
Stephen Duncan Postel Demands 2 Officials Quit Over Spofford Dispute, Sunday News, (Aug. 16, 1970)
available at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/394653553/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22
youth%22&match=1.
16
Judith Cummings, Spofford School Guard’s Arrest In Rape at Center Draws Criticism, N.Y. Times, (Feb.
19, 1978), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/02/19/112776427.html?pageNumber=60
17
Id.
18
See Juvenile Justice, No More Juveniles at Spofford Lock-Up, The New School – Center for New York City
Affairs, (Mar. 23, 2011), available at https://www.centernyc.org/child-welfare-nyc/2011/03/no-more-juveniles-at-
spofford-lock-up.
19
See Jonathan Marty, The Story of the Bronx’s Spofford Juvenile Detention Center, N.Y.U., (May 23, 2018),
available at https://urbandemos.nyu.edu/2018/05/23/the-story-of-the-bronxs-spofford-juvenile-detention-center/.
20
Id.
12 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
h. In August 1998, SPOFFORD was shut down after 41 years of operation plagued
by “shabby conditions, overcrowding and alleged abuse by guards.”21 “Staffers were
repeatedly accused of beating kids at the notorious Hunts Point jail in The Bronx,
where kids complained of cockroaches in the food and jam-packed conditions that
forced some to sleep in the infirmary.”22 However, SPOFFORD was reopened just
two years later in 2000 after a surge in juvenile arrests.23
i. In June 2002, Barrett Walter, a juvenile counselor employed by the Department of
Juvenile Justice at SPOFFORD, was arrested on charges that he had sexually
abused a 16-year-old male resident of a juvenile center and endangered the welfare
of another 16-year-old male resident.24
j. In March 2011, after 54 years in operation, SPOFFORD was closed. At the time of
its closure, SPOFFORD had a reputation for fights and pervasive abuse and was
known to confine children to “dark cells with no air conditioning.”25 SPOFFORD
was described as notorious for its “vermin-infested cells and abuse allegations.”26
B. Defendants’ Duty to Plaintiff
21
Rocco Parascandola, Kids Put Spofford Back in Biz, N.Y. Post, (May 22, 2000), available at
https://nypost.com/2000/05/22/kids-put-spofford-back-in-biz/.
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
See N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, DOI Arrest DJJ Counselor for Sexual Abuse, (June 20, 2022), available
at https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doi/downloads/pdf/pr062002.pdf
25
See Daniel Beekman, Spofford is finally shut, Daily News, (Mar. 31, 2011), available at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/576257847/?terms=%22spofford%22%20%22sexual%20abuse%22%20%22yo
uth%22%20&match=1
26
See Tanyanika Samuels, Cell-ebrate change, (May 5, 2013), available at
https://www.newspapers.com/image/576029322/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22
youth%22&match=1.
13 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
30. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY was responsible for
providing for the care, protection and safety of children within New York City placed in
juvenile detention by and through the courts of New York City.
31. At all times relevant and material hereto, ACS was an agency within the CITY that had a
primary mission of promoting the development, well-being, and safety of the children in
juvenile detention facilities operated by the CITY.
32. At all times relevant and material hereto, the CITY, by and through ACS, established and
enforced policies and procedures, collaborated with other State and City agencies, and
funded and provided an array of services. The responsibilities of ACS included the
administration of juvenile detention for youth who had been remanded to ACS custody by
family and criminal courts.
33. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS,
administered juvenile detention centers throughout New York City, including
SPOFFORD.
34. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for oversight and monitoring of
juvenile detention centers to ensure compliance with applicable city, state, and federal
laws.
35. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for ensuring that the rights of
children placed in juvenile detention centers, such as SPOFFORD, were not violated and
that children placed in juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD continued to enjoy
all the fundamental rights and freedoms children have outside of juvenile detention centers.
This included the basic right to be treated with dignity, the right to be free of cruel and
inhumane treatment, and the right to be free from physical and sexual abuse.
14 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
36. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for
developing policies and procedures to prevent the sexual abuse of children in its legal
custody.
37. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for
performing database and/or background checks on prospective employees of the State’s
juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD.
38. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York Law authorized Defendants CITY and
ACS to inspect and supervise juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD in the interest
of protecting the life, health, safety, and comfort of the children placed in juvenile
detention.
39. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York law authorized Defendants CITY and
ACS to investigate all reported child abuse allegations at the juvenile detention facilities
within New York City such as SPOFFORD.
40. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, had a
non-delegable duty to use reasonable care in the investigation, licensing, supervision and/or
monitoring of SPOFFORD and other juvenile detention centers within the City and to
develop or implement programs, guidelines, procedures and/or training to prevent the
abuse of children placed within SPOFFORD and other juvenile detention centers.
41. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, provided
child welfare, child protective care and childcare services.
42. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was the
legal guardian and/or custodian of Plaintiff and owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to
protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms.
15 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
43. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed a
non-delegable duty to Plaintiff to use reasonable care to protect the safety, care, well-being
and health of Plaintiff while he was under its care and custody. Defendant CITY’s duties,
by and through ACS’ duties, encompassed reasonable care in the supervision of children
in its agents’ custody and control, as well as reasonable care in the selection, retention and
supervision of individuals working at juvenile detention facilities.
44. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed a
non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of employees and/or agents
in the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children in its care, custody
and/or control.
45. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed
a non-delegable duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in the exercise of
reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children
in its care, custody and/or control.
46. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed
non-delegable duties to children in juvenile detention, including without limitation:
a. To evaluate and investigate all reports of child abuse and/or neglect;
b. To investigate all relevant conditions of the juvenile detention centers that might
affect the child;
c. To ensure that children residing in a juvenile detention center are supervised at all
times by authorized adult caregivers;
d. To report and investigate all known incidents of sexual abuse or aggression
occurring in the juvenile detention center;
16 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
e. To ensure that children were not left in dangerous conditions, including being
subjected to sexual, emotional or physical abuse.
47. Defendant CITY, through ACS, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and
negligence of its agents, employees and entities with which it retains and/or contracts with
to render juvenile detention and other custodial services, including without limitation, at
SPOFFORD.
48. Defendant CITY, through ACS, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and
negligence of the agents, employees and entities carrying out its non-delegable duties,
including without limitation, at SPOFFORD.
C. Gender-motivated sexual abuse of Plaintiff at Spofford Juvenile Detention Center
49. Plaintiff was in custody at SPOFFORD in around 2007 for a period of several weeks, when
she was around 13 years old.
50. Plaintiff was sexually abused by PERPETRATOR, an employee of SPOFFORD during the
time that she was detained.27
51. A few weeks into her detention at SPOFFORD, Plaintiff was in her room in the evening
after taking a shower and PERPETRATOR entered the room. PERPETRATOR told
Plaintiff she was beautiful. PERPETRATOR forced Plaintiff to masturbate, and she
fondled Plaintiff’s breasts. PERPETRATOR forced Plaintiff to fondle her genitals under
her clothes.
52. PERPETRATOR sexually abused Plaintiff in this manner around three times during her
detention at SPOFFORD.
53. PERPETRATOR bribed Plaintiff with food from outside the facility and hygiene products.
27
At all relevant times herein, PERPETRATOR was a tall, heavy-set, Black woman with a perm who wore
glasses, and had a gold tooth.
17 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
54. PERPETRATOR’s abuse ended when Plaintiff requested to be transferred to another unit.
55. At all relevant times, PERPETRATOR was a staff member at SPOFFORD and served as
an employee/agent of the Defendants.
56. The above-described sexual contact and/or acts perpetrated by PERPETRATOR was non-
consensual. At the relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a minor in the legal and physical
custody of the Defendants and could not legally consent.
57. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PERPETRATOR was sexually abusing
children at SPOFFORD, including Plaintiff.
58. At the time of the above-described sexual abuse of Plaintiff, PERPETRATOR was not
being adequately supervised, monitored, or surveilled by Defendants. Upon information
and belief, Defendants’ failure to supervise, discipline, remove, and/or otherwise
investigate these staff members directly enabled the above-described sexual abuse.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE
PROTECTION ACT
AGAINT ALL DEFENDANTS
59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above
as if fully stated in this Count.
60. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATOR in
the commission of an act or series of acts that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony
against the person as defined in state or federal law.
61. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATOR in
the commission of a crime of violence.
18 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
62. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff constitutes a crime of violence because it
constitutes a misdemeanor and/or felony against Plaintiff as defined in state and/or federal
law.
63. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff is a crime of violence motivated by gender
because it was a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender,
and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the Plaintiff’s gender.
64. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff would constitute a sexual offense as defined
under New York Penal Code article 130.
65. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, PERPETRATOR
groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff, which caused Plaintiff to be damaged. As a direct
and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will
continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, discomfort,
physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem,
disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff was prevented, and will
continue to be prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment
of life. Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, loss of earnings and earning
capacity. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, expenses for medical and
psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling.
66. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was injured solely and wholly as a result of the
negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendants, without any negligence on the
part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto.
67. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to monetary relief, in the form of compensatory damages, to
remedy the bodily harm and severe pain and suffering and emotional distress suffered as a
19 of 29
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
result of PERPETRATOR’s extreme and outrageous conduct for which Defendants are
liable.
68. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions in directing, enabling, participating in and/or conspiring
in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by PERPETRATOR were grossly negligent or reckless
conduct evincing an utter disregard for the safety or rights of others, including Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and
others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above
as if fully stated in this Count.
70. Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff, a child, from foreseeable
harm when Plaintiff was under their supervision and in their care, custody and control.
71. Defendants also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent PERPETRATOR from using
the tasks, premises, and instrumentalities of their position as an employee supervised by
Defendants to target, groom and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff.
72. Defendants were supervising PERPETRATOR when Plaintiff was a child being detained
at SPOFFORD, during which time the Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to
protect him.
73. These circumstances created a special relationship between the Defendants and the
Plaintiff, which imposed on the Defendants a duty to exercise the degree of care a parent
of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances.
74. Defendants breached each of the foregoing duties by failing to exercise reasonabl
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ---------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS TISHA SOLOMON, Index No. Plaintiff, Date Purchased: -against- Plaintiffs designate BRONX COUNTY as place of trial CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES Basis of Venue: CPLR § 504(3) f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE and SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER a/k/a/ BRIDGES JUVENILE CENTER, Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------X YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the plaintiff’s attorneys within twenty (20) days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. The venue and location for trial is Bronx County. The basis of venue is where the cause of action arose. Dated: New York, New York April 29, 2024 Yours etc., LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs /s/ Madeleine L. Skaller Madeleine L. Skaller, Esq. 605 Third Avenue, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10158 (212) 605-6200 mskaller@levylaw.com 1 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 Defendants’ Addresses CITY OF NEW YORK 150 William Street New York, NY 10038 NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES 150 William Street NEW YORK, NY 10038 SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER 150 William Street New York, NY 10038 2 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX ----------------------------------------------------------------X TISHA SOLOMON, VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE and SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER a/k/a/ BRIDGES JUVENILE CENTER, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff Tisha Solomon, by and through her attorneys, Levy Konigsberg LLP, alleges for her Complaint the following: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The Spofford Juvenile Detention Center (“Spofford”) was a notorious juvenile detention facility operated by the City of New York from the late 1950s until its closure in 2011. At Spofford, children were treated inhumanely in all respects, and this included rampant sexual abuse of juvenile detainees by correctional officers and staff members. Due to the City’s policy of locking up children for relatively minor violations or behavioral problems, many children who simply needed help went straight from difficult home lives into a traumatizing, prisonlike environment where they were regularly sexually abused. Despite widespread reports, investigations, and campaigns to close the facility dating back to at least the 1960s, the City of New York allowed Spofford’s culture of sexual abuse and brutality to continue unabated. 3 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 2. In around 2007, a female staff member at Spofford abused the power of her position and sexually abused Plaintiff, a child under the age of eighteen detained at Spofford Juvenile Detention Facility. 3. Plaintiff suffered physical, psychological, and other injuries as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child less than eighteen years of age. 4. The emotional and psychological trauma associated with the sexual abuse she suffered at Spofford has haunted Plaintiff for her entire life. She has been and remains traumatized and damaged as a result of the acts alleged herein. The abuse by the female staff member (“PERPETRATOR”), and the failures of Defendants to protect Plaintiff, have left Plaintiff deeply emotionally scarred and damaged. 5. With the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff joins the dozens of other survivors of sexual abuse at Spofford Juvenile Detention Center who have filed, or will be filing, separate complaints under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act. Each of these other plaintiffs was sexually abused by the guards, counselors, and other staff members who were supposed to be watching out for them. The abuse endured by these plaintiffs stretches across decades. Similar abuse of children at New York City’s other juvenile detention facilities continues to this day. 6. This complaint is filed pursuant to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-1101, et seq., because it pertains to intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or other injuries suffered as a result of at least one crime of violence motivated by gender. 4 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 7. On January 9, 2022, an amendment to the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-11-1, et. seq., was enacted by the New York City Council. This law allows survivors of gender-motivated violence whose claims were previously time-barred to file a lawsuit against their abusers and institutions that directed, enabled, participated in, and/or conspired to commit a crime of violence motivated by gender during a two-year “look-back-period” and extends the original statutory filing period to nine years. The two-year look back window took effect on March 1, 2023. The new amendment temporarily lifts the statute of limitations on civil cases involving gender-based violence. During the look-back window, victims and survivors of violence perpetrated on the basis of gender can recover damages from their abusers, even if it has been years or decades since the assault(s). This look-back window ends February 28, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is timely, and it is properly filed under New York N.Y.C. Admin Code § 10-1101, et seq., (Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law). 8. As set forth in greater detail below, Plaintiff asserts state law claims for Violation of the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, negligence, negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision, and breach of statutory duty to report abuse under Social Services Law §§ 413 and 420. 9. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the injuries she has suffered, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs and disbursements of bringing this action. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York in Kings County. 5 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 11. Defendant, CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter, “CITY”), is a political subdivision of the State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was and is responsible for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY. CITY is a citizen of the State of New York. 12. Defendant, NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES f/k/a BUREAU OF CHILD WELFARE (hereinafter referred to as “ACS”), is a department of Defendant CITY. It is authorized by New York law to care for children in juvenile detention in New York City. Upon information and belief, the New York City Department of Juvenile Justice which was responsible for the CITY’s juvenile detention centers was merged into ACS in 2010. Children in juvenile detention are in the legal custody of the Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038. ACS is a citizen of the State of New York. 13. Defendants CITY and ACS operate and/or operated the following juvenile detention facilities that house and/or housed detained youth in the juvenile justice system: a. Spofford Juvenile Detention Center (renamed Bridges Juvenile Detention Center in 1999), a co-ed facility located at 1221 Spofford Avenue, Bronx, NY 10474; b. Horizon Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 560 Brook Avenue Bronx, NY 10455; c. Crossroad Juvenile Center, a co-ed facility located at 17 Bristol Street Brooklyn, NY 11212; 6 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 d. Riker’s Island, which is comprised of several facilities that including Rose M. Singer Center, an all-female facility located at 19-19 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11360; Anna M. Kross Center, an all-male facility located at 18-18 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Robert N. Davoren Center, an all-male facility located at 11-11 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; Eric M. Taylor Center, a facility located at 10-10 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; and Otis Bantum Correctional Center, a facility located at 16-00 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11370; e. Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center, a prison barge anchored in the East River; 14. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant SPOFFORD JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER (hereinafter referred to as “SPOFFORD”) was a juvenile detention facility located in the Bronx, New York that was owned, operated, maintained and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant CITY because is a political subdivision of the State of New York. At all times relevant and material hereto, CITY was responsible for the care and safety of children in juvenile detention centers within CITY, including but not limited to Spofford Juvenile Detention Center. CITY is a citizen of the State of New York. 16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ACS because it is a department of Defendant CITY. Defendant ACS is authorized by New York City to care for children in juvenile detention in New York City. Children in foster care are in the legal custody of the Commissioner of ACS, who is an employee/agent of CITY. Children in juvenile detention 7 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 are in the custody of the Commissioner of ACS and its predecessor agencies. ACS has a principal place of business located at 150 William Street, New York, New York 10038. ACS is a citizen of the State of New York. 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SPOFFORD because it was a juvenile detention facility located in the Bronx, New York that was owned, operated, maintained and controlled by the CITY by and through ACS. 18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages Plaintiff seeks exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction. 19. Venue is proper in Bronx County pursuant to CPLR §§ 503(a), 504(3), and 505(a), because all, or virtually all, of Defendants’ acts and omissions, as well as the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, occurred in the Bronx. FACTS A. History and Tolerance of Gender-Motivated Sexual Abuse at Juvenile Detention Facilities Run by Defendants CITY and ACS 20. For decades, children detained in juvenile detention facilities operated by CITY and ACS have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of guards, counselors, and other agents of the CITY and ACS, all while Defendants have had knowledge of, and turned a blind eye to, this culture of abuse.1 The sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities operated by the CITY and ACS has ranged from inappropriate strip searches to rape using violent physical force.2 The CITY and ACS agents have had, and continue to have, inappropriate and criminal 1 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09 (Jan. 2010), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf. 2 See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 15 (Jan. 2011), available at https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf. 8 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 sexual relationships with children at CITY and ACS facilities, oftentimes involving bribery and grooming. Children detained in CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities are regularly offered contraband—such as cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol—or privileges in exchange for sexual favors.3 The pervasive and persistent abuse, including sexual abuse, at CITY and ACS facilities has been publicly reported on for decades. The culture of abuse nonetheless continues to be a reality for children detained in CITY and ACS facilities to this day. 21. Children who are sexually abused in CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities rarely file grievances against staff due to fear of retaliation or knowing that they will not be believed.4 Children at CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities know that they cannot trust facility staff, who regularly engage in physical abuse of the children charged to their care.5 When they do witness or learn of sexual assaults, staff members at CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities look the other way and allow it to continue.6 Sexual abuse at CITY and ACS juvenile detention facilities therefore goes severely underreported.7 22. According to a 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Justice, 13% percent of youth in juvenile facilities are sexually abused, most often by the staff of the facility.8 3 See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09 at 14 (Jan. 2010), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED508530.pdf. 4 See Jana Allen et. al., ‘It’s never OK’: Sexual abuse persists in juvenile facilities despite years of reform, Kids Imprisoned – News21, (Aug. 21, 2020) available at https://kidsimprisoned.news21.com/sexual-assault- juvenile-detention-facilities/ 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 See Robert W. Dumond, The Impact of Prisoner Sexual Violence: Challenges of Implementing Public Law 108-79 – The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 32 J. LEGIS. 142, 147 (2006) (“To fully understand the implications of the BJS study, one must recognize that of all categories of crime, rape and sexual violence are known to be one of the most underreported, making an accurate assessment of its occurrence difficult.”). 8 Jeremy Travis, Reflections on Juvenile Justice Reform in New York, 56 N.Y.L.S. Law Rev. 1318 at 1322 (2011-12) available at https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=nyls_law_review; Melissa Sickmund, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Juveniles in Residential Placement, 1997–2008 (2010), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229379.pdf. 9 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 23. In 2008-09, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study that found that 88% of youth who reported staff sexual misconduct reported more than one incident, with 27% reporting more than ten.9 24. In another study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice that examined substantiated instances of sexual abuse at juvenile detention facilities between 2013 and 2018 found that most juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children faced no legal repercussions for their actions.10 25. This study found that more than 27% of children who were abused by staff were subject to actions that could be viewed as punishment, such as being issued a disciplinary report, losing privileges, being placed in a separate housing unit, or confined to their cell or room.11 26. The study also concluded that the majority of the cases involving staff victimizing youth were more serious in nature: 68% involved sexual misconduct, which the study defined as indecent exposure, intentionally touching sexual areas, and actions up through completed sexual acts. 27. While the U.S. Department of Justice Report focused on substantiated reports of sexual abuse, experts in the field note that “only a minuscule percentage of the overall incidents of sexual abuse [are reported]; most kids in custody who endure abuse don't speak out, and those who do usually see their reports go nowhere.”12 9 See U.S. Dep’t of Just., Proposed National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) at 6 (Jan. 2011), available at https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/prea_nprm_iria.pdf. 10 See Emily D. Buehler, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Substantiated Incidents of Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Justice Authorities, 2013–2018 (Mar. 2023) available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/sisvrjja1318.pdf 11 Id. 12 See Tami Abdollah, Juvenile detention staff who sexually victimized children face few legal sanctions, study says, USA Today, (Apr. 1, 2023) available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023/04/01/most- juvenile-detention-staff-who-abused-children-faced-no-legal-action/11571406002/ 10 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 28. Defendants were aware that sexual abuse of children by facility staff was a persistent and prevalent problem in their juvenile detention facilities, including SPOFFORD. For decades, Defendants have been made aware of the ongoing sexual abuse of children in their care through the investigations and reports by the CITY’s own task force, by the U.S. Department of Justice, studies by third parties, allegations by children at SPOFFORD, and criminal proceedings against their employees and agents. 29. Documented and publicized abuse, and reports of conditions known to be likely to lead to abuse, at SPOFFORD facilities include: a. In November 1969, State Senator John Dunne demanded a meeting with then mayor John Lindsay to discuss the “horrible” conditions at SPOFFORD and other juvenile detention facilities. Senator Dunne undertook efforts to investigate charges of “brutality, sexual abuse and drug smuggling” at SPOFFORD.13 b. In July 1970, a probe into SPOFFORD was court-order following charges of drug trafficking and sexual abuse.14 c. In August 1970, a city council member called for the resignation of several high ranking official in the CITY’s juvenile justice system after he visited SPOFFORD and saw firsthand the “filth and degradation” there. The city council member alleged in a lawsuit, after conducting over 400 hours of interviews with youth detainees, SPOFFORD employees, and childcare experts, that there was illicit drug 13 Judson Hand, Dunne & Lindsay to Meet On the Jammed Kid Jails, Daily News, (Nov. 29, 1969), available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/395370866/?terms=%22spofford%22%20%22sexual%20abuse%22%20%22yo uth%22%20&match=1. 14 Thomas Poster, Judges Order Probe of City’s Youth Homes, Daily News (Jul. 23, 1970) available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/464467866/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22 youth%22&match=1. 11 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 trafficking, inappropriate sexual conduct, and “widespread physical brutality” at SPOFFORD.15 d. In February 1978, a SPOFFORD guard was arrested after a 14-year old detainee was raped by two other detainees and the guard “locked the doors for privacy” and walked away to permit the rape to continue.16 Following this attack, a city official stated that: “It is our information that youngsters are assaulted sexually and physically in other parts of [SPOFFORD], like in the dormitories, and we know of no counselors arrested because they failed to prevent these incidents.”17 e. In 1978, a commission appointed by then-mayor Ed Koch called SPOFFORD “a case study in failure,” concluding that the only solution was to shut it down. 18 f. In 1996, a counselor at SPOFFORD was fired for shackling a 15-year-old girl’s hands and feet and molesting her.19 g. In 1997, there were 48 child-abuse claims made against Spofford employees, including one instance where a counselor was convicted of attempted assault after beating a boy nearly to death. The counselor was never sentenced and continued to be on the city’s payroll. 20 15 Stephen Duncan Postel Demands 2 Officials Quit Over Spofford Dispute, Sunday News, (Aug. 16, 1970) available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/394653553/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22 youth%22&match=1. 16 Judith Cummings, Spofford School Guard’s Arrest In Rape at Center Draws Criticism, N.Y. Times, (Feb. 19, 1978), https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/02/19/112776427.html?pageNumber=60 17 Id. 18 See Juvenile Justice, No More Juveniles at Spofford Lock-Up, The New School – Center for New York City Affairs, (Mar. 23, 2011), available at https://www.centernyc.org/child-welfare-nyc/2011/03/no-more-juveniles-at- spofford-lock-up. 19 See Jonathan Marty, The Story of the Bronx’s Spofford Juvenile Detention Center, N.Y.U., (May 23, 2018), available at https://urbandemos.nyu.edu/2018/05/23/the-story-of-the-bronxs-spofford-juvenile-detention-center/. 20 Id. 12 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 h. In August 1998, SPOFFORD was shut down after 41 years of operation plagued by “shabby conditions, overcrowding and alleged abuse by guards.”21 “Staffers were repeatedly accused of beating kids at the notorious Hunts Point jail in The Bronx, where kids complained of cockroaches in the food and jam-packed conditions that forced some to sleep in the infirmary.”22 However, SPOFFORD was reopened just two years later in 2000 after a surge in juvenile arrests.23 i. In June 2002, Barrett Walter, a juvenile counselor employed by the Department of Juvenile Justice at SPOFFORD, was arrested on charges that he had sexually abused a 16-year-old male resident of a juvenile center and endangered the welfare of another 16-year-old male resident.24 j. In March 2011, after 54 years in operation, SPOFFORD was closed. At the time of its closure, SPOFFORD had a reputation for fights and pervasive abuse and was known to confine children to “dark cells with no air conditioning.”25 SPOFFORD was described as notorious for its “vermin-infested cells and abuse allegations.”26 B. Defendants’ Duty to Plaintiff 21 Rocco Parascandola, Kids Put Spofford Back in Biz, N.Y. Post, (May 22, 2000), available at https://nypost.com/2000/05/22/kids-put-spofford-back-in-biz/. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 See N.Y.C. Dep’t of Investigation, DOI Arrest DJJ Counselor for Sexual Abuse, (June 20, 2022), available at https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doi/downloads/pdf/pr062002.pdf 25 See Daniel Beekman, Spofford is finally shut, Daily News, (Mar. 31, 2011), available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/576257847/?terms=%22spofford%22%20%22sexual%20abuse%22%20%22yo uth%22%20&match=1 26 See Tanyanika Samuels, Cell-ebrate change, (May 5, 2013), available at https://www.newspapers.com/image/576029322/?terms=%22spofford%20juvenile%22%20%22abuse%22%20%22 youth%22&match=1. 13 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 30. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY was responsible for providing for the care, protection and safety of children within New York City placed in juvenile detention by and through the courts of New York City. 31. At all times relevant and material hereto, ACS was an agency within the CITY that had a primary mission of promoting the development, well-being, and safety of the children in juvenile detention facilities operated by the CITY. 32. At all times relevant and material hereto, the CITY, by and through ACS, established and enforced policies and procedures, collaborated with other State and City agencies, and funded and provided an array of services. The responsibilities of ACS included the administration of juvenile detention for youth who had been remanded to ACS custody by family and criminal courts. 33. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, administered juvenile detention centers throughout New York City, including SPOFFORD. 34. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for oversight and monitoring of juvenile detention centers to ensure compliance with applicable city, state, and federal laws. 35. Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for ensuring that the rights of children placed in juvenile detention centers, such as SPOFFORD, were not violated and that children placed in juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD continued to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms children have outside of juvenile detention centers. This included the basic right to be treated with dignity, the right to be free of cruel and inhumane treatment, and the right to be free from physical and sexual abuse. 14 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 36. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for developing policies and procedures to prevent the sexual abuse of children in its legal custody. 37. Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was responsible for performing database and/or background checks on prospective employees of the State’s juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD. 38. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York Law authorized Defendants CITY and ACS to inspect and supervise juvenile detention centers such as SPOFFORD in the interest of protecting the life, health, safety, and comfort of the children placed in juvenile detention. 39. At all times relevant and material hereto, New York law authorized Defendants CITY and ACS to investigate all reported child abuse allegations at the juvenile detention facilities within New York City such as SPOFFORD. 40. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, had a non-delegable duty to use reasonable care in the investigation, licensing, supervision and/or monitoring of SPOFFORD and other juvenile detention centers within the City and to develop or implement programs, guidelines, procedures and/or training to prevent the abuse of children placed within SPOFFORD and other juvenile detention centers. 41. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, provided child welfare, child protective care and childcare services. 42. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, was the legal guardian and/or custodian of Plaintiff and owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harms. 15 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 43. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff to use reasonable care to protect the safety, care, well-being and health of Plaintiff while he was under its care and custody. Defendant CITY’s duties, by and through ACS’ duties, encompassed reasonable care in the supervision of children in its agents’ custody and control, as well as reasonable care in the selection, retention and supervision of individuals working at juvenile detention facilities. 44. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed a non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care in the training of employees and/or agents in the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children in its care, custody and/or control. 45. At all times relevant and material hereto, the Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed a non-delegable duty to establish and implement policies and procedures in the exercise of reasonable care for the prevention of sexual abuse and protection of the safety of children in its care, custody and/or control. 46. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendant CITY, by and through ACS, owed non-delegable duties to children in juvenile detention, including without limitation: a. To evaluate and investigate all reports of child abuse and/or neglect; b. To investigate all relevant conditions of the juvenile detention centers that might affect the child; c. To ensure that children residing in a juvenile detention center are supervised at all times by authorized adult caregivers; d. To report and investigate all known incidents of sexual abuse or aggression occurring in the juvenile detention center; 16 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 e. To ensure that children were not left in dangerous conditions, including being subjected to sexual, emotional or physical abuse. 47. Defendant CITY, through ACS, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and negligence of its agents, employees and entities with which it retains and/or contracts with to render juvenile detention and other custodial services, including without limitation, at SPOFFORD. 48. Defendant CITY, through ACS, is legally responsible for the acts, omissions and negligence of the agents, employees and entities carrying out its non-delegable duties, including without limitation, at SPOFFORD. C. Gender-motivated sexual abuse of Plaintiff at Spofford Juvenile Detention Center 49. Plaintiff was in custody at SPOFFORD in around 2007 for a period of several weeks, when she was around 13 years old. 50. Plaintiff was sexually abused by PERPETRATOR, an employee of SPOFFORD during the time that she was detained.27 51. A few weeks into her detention at SPOFFORD, Plaintiff was in her room in the evening after taking a shower and PERPETRATOR entered the room. PERPETRATOR told Plaintiff she was beautiful. PERPETRATOR forced Plaintiff to masturbate, and she fondled Plaintiff’s breasts. PERPETRATOR forced Plaintiff to fondle her genitals under her clothes. 52. PERPETRATOR sexually abused Plaintiff in this manner around three times during her detention at SPOFFORD. 53. PERPETRATOR bribed Plaintiff with food from outside the facility and hygiene products. 27 At all relevant times herein, PERPETRATOR was a tall, heavy-set, Black woman with a perm who wore glasses, and had a gold tooth. 17 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 54. PERPETRATOR’s abuse ended when Plaintiff requested to be transferred to another unit. 55. At all relevant times, PERPETRATOR was a staff member at SPOFFORD and served as an employee/agent of the Defendants. 56. The above-described sexual contact and/or acts perpetrated by PERPETRATOR was non- consensual. At the relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a minor in the legal and physical custody of the Defendants and could not legally consent. 57. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PERPETRATOR was sexually abusing children at SPOFFORD, including Plaintiff. 58. At the time of the above-described sexual abuse of Plaintiff, PERPETRATOR was not being adequately supervised, monitored, or surveilled by Defendants. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ failure to supervise, discipline, remove, and/or otherwise investigate these staff members directly enabled the above-described sexual abuse. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT AGAINT ALL DEFENDANTS 59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above as if fully stated in this Count. 60. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATOR in the commission of an act or series of acts that would constitute a misdemeanor or felony against the person as defined in state or federal law. 61. Defendants directed, enabled, participated in and/or conspired with PERPETRATOR in the commission of a crime of violence. 18 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 62. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff constitutes a crime of violence because it constitutes a misdemeanor and/or felony against Plaintiff as defined in state and/or federal law. 63. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff is a crime of violence motivated by gender because it was a crime of violence committed because of gender or on the basis of gender, and due, at least in part, to an animus based on the Plaintiff’s gender. 64. PERPETRATOR’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff would constitute a sexual offense as defined under New York Penal Code article 130. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, PERPETRATOR groomed and sexually abused Plaintiff, which caused Plaintiff to be damaged. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct, Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, discomfort, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff was prevented, and will continue to be prevented, from performing daily activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life. Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, loss of earnings and earning capacity. Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy, and counseling. 66. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was injured solely and wholly as a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendants, without any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff contributing thereto. 67. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to monetary relief, in the form of compensatory damages, to remedy the bodily harm and severe pain and suffering and emotional distress suffered as a 19 of 29 FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 04/29/2024 10:32 AM INDEX NO. 807016/2024E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024 result of PERPETRATOR’s extreme and outrageous conduct for which Defendants are liable. 68. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions in directing, enabling, participating in and/or conspiring in the sexual abuse of Plaintiff by PERPETRATOR were grossly negligent or reckless conduct evincing an utter disregard for the safety or rights of others, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every previous allegation above as if fully stated in this Count. 70. Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff, a child, from foreseeable harm when Plaintiff was under their supervision and in their care, custody and control. 71. Defendants also had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent PERPETRATOR from using the tasks, premises, and instrumentalities of their position as an employee supervised by Defendants to target, groom and sexually abuse children, including Plaintiff. 72. Defendants were supervising PERPETRATOR when Plaintiff was a child being detained at SPOFFORD, during which time the Defendants had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect him. 73. These circumstances created a special relationship between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, which imposed on the Defendants a duty to exercise the degree of care a parent of ordinary prudence in comparable circumstances. 74. Defendants breached each of the foregoing duties by failing to exercise reasonabl