Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
----------------------------------------------------------)(
DOUGLASS. ADAMS , Index No. 036519/2019
Plaintiff,
SUPPLEMENTAL
-against- AFFIRMATION IN
OPPOSITION TO
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SUFFERN APPLICATION FOR
CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------)(
MARK C. RUSHFIELD, being an attorney admitted to the practice of law before
this Court, hereby affirms and says:
1. I am an attorney, of counsel to the law firm of Shaw, Perelson, May &
Lambert, LLP, the attorneys for the defendant Board of Education and counsel designated
to represent the Board as concerns a June 12, 2019 Amended Notice of Disciplinary
Charges asse1ted by the Board as against the Suffern Central School District's
Superintendent of Schools, Plaintiff Douglas Adams. I have submitted to the Court an
affirmation in opposition to the Plaintif-f s application for a temporary restraining order and
hereby supplement that affirmation.
2. In his affidavit submitted in support of his application, the Plaintiff provides
allegations concerning his defense to certain of the charges made against him by the Board,
which are scheduled to be heard before Hearing Officer Edelman, commencing on
November 25, 2019. It is submitted that it is not within the purview of the Court to address
such allegations on an application for a temporary restraining order and that the finder of
facts in that regard is, pursuant to the Plaintiffs employment agreement, to be Hearing
Officer Edelman. However, as the Plaintiff has presented at paragraphs 54-86 of his
1
1 of 3
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019
affidavit allegations and exhibits concerning Charge IV, for purposes of the Court having
a more complete record of the communications concerning that subject, I am submitting
this supplemental affim1ation for the Court's consideration.
3. At paragraph 57 of his affidavit, the Plaintiff alleges that with regard to the
issue of the preparation of the resolution concerning the RFP for a Special Engagement
Auditor, on December 19, 2018, at 1:48 p.m., he sent an email to defendant Shaw asking
"is there anything else you need?" The Plaintiff supports this allegation by Exhibit U, for
which the December 19, 20 18 (1 :48 p .m.) email therein is cut off at its bottom after the
words "Is there anything else that you need?" That complete email is submitted herewith
as Exhibit A and makes clear that the Plaintiffs question as to whether there was anything
else that Defendant Shaw needed did not relate to the RFP for a Special Engagement
Auditor, but rather to addressing contract grievances that had been filed by the Suffern
Education Association ("SEA") under its collective negotiations agreement with the
school district.
4. It appears that the Plaintiff also selectively left out a number of email
communications concerning the subject of the Special Engagement Order from his
allegations at paragraph 54 -86 of his affidavit and, for purposes of completeness, should
the Court deem it appropriate to consider the exhibits submitted through paragraphs 54-86
of the Plaintiffs affidavit, it should take into consideration the emails the Plaintiff left out,
which are submitted herewith at Exhibit B.
5. In te1ms of the Plaintiff's claims of denial of due process, the Court should
take note that the process involved in this matter involves hearings through which the
Hearing Officer does not issue a binding decision, but instead findings of fact and
"disciplinary recommendations, if any, to the Board for its consideration." See
2
2 of 3
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019
Exhibit DDD to the Plaintiffs' motion papers at page 9 thereof. If the end result of that
process is a Board of Education vote sustaining any of the charges and the imposition of
discipline by the Board upon the Plaintiff, all claims of a violation of due process through
the process and procedure followed, including claims that the Plaintiff was denied the
scope of discovery he considers to be necessary to be afforded due process, are subject to
an Article 78 proceeding against the Board of Education, challenging the process and
procedures followed as denying the Plaintiff due process. Santana v. Coughlin, 90 A.D. 2d
947, 948-949 (3d Dept. 1982); Soucy v. Bd. of Ed. of N Colonie Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 5,
41 A.D.2d 984, 984 (3d Dept. 1973)
6. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true. I am aware that if they are
willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Comi render an Order denying
the application of the Plaintiff for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining and restraining
the commencement of the arbitration and hearing of the charges against the Plaintiff and
granting the Defendants such other and fmiher relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: November 21, 2019 /
MARK C. RUSHFIELD, ESQ.
3
3 of 3
Preview
FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ROCKLAND ----------------------------------------------------------)( DOUGLASS. ADAMS , Index No. 036519/2019 Plaintiff, SUPPLEMENTAL -against- AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SUFFERN APPLICATION FOR CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------)( MARK C. RUSHFIELD, being an attorney admitted to the practice of law before this Court, hereby affirms and says: 1. I am an attorney, of counsel to the law firm of Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, the attorneys for the defendant Board of Education and counsel designated to represent the Board as concerns a June 12, 2019 Amended Notice of Disciplinary Charges asse1ted by the Board as against the Suffern Central School District's Superintendent of Schools, Plaintiff Douglas Adams. I have submitted to the Court an affirmation in opposition to the Plaintif-f s application for a temporary restraining order and hereby supplement that affirmation. 2. In his affidavit submitted in support of his application, the Plaintiff provides allegations concerning his defense to certain of the charges made against him by the Board, which are scheduled to be heard before Hearing Officer Edelman, commencing on November 25, 2019. It is submitted that it is not within the purview of the Court to address such allegations on an application for a temporary restraining order and that the finder of facts in that regard is, pursuant to the Plaintiffs employment agreement, to be Hearing Officer Edelman. However, as the Plaintiff has presented at paragraphs 54-86 of his 1 1 of 3 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019 affidavit allegations and exhibits concerning Charge IV, for purposes of the Court having a more complete record of the communications concerning that subject, I am submitting this supplemental affim1ation for the Court's consideration. 3. At paragraph 57 of his affidavit, the Plaintiff alleges that with regard to the issue of the preparation of the resolution concerning the RFP for a Special Engagement Auditor, on December 19, 2018, at 1:48 p.m., he sent an email to defendant Shaw asking "is there anything else you need?" The Plaintiff supports this allegation by Exhibit U, for which the December 19, 20 18 (1 :48 p .m.) email therein is cut off at its bottom after the words "Is there anything else that you need?" That complete email is submitted herewith as Exhibit A and makes clear that the Plaintiffs question as to whether there was anything else that Defendant Shaw needed did not relate to the RFP for a Special Engagement Auditor, but rather to addressing contract grievances that had been filed by the Suffern Education Association ("SEA") under its collective negotiations agreement with the school district. 4. It appears that the Plaintiff also selectively left out a number of email communications concerning the subject of the Special Engagement Order from his allegations at paragraph 54 -86 of his affidavit and, for purposes of completeness, should the Court deem it appropriate to consider the exhibits submitted through paragraphs 54-86 of the Plaintiffs affidavit, it should take into consideration the emails the Plaintiff left out, which are submitted herewith at Exhibit B. 5. In te1ms of the Plaintiff's claims of denial of due process, the Court should take note that the process involved in this matter involves hearings through which the Hearing Officer does not issue a binding decision, but instead findings of fact and "disciplinary recommendations, if any, to the Board for its consideration." See 2 2 of 3 FILED: ROCKLAND COUNTY CLERK 11/21/2019 03:56 PM INDEX NO. 036519/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 79 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/21/2019 Exhibit DDD to the Plaintiffs' motion papers at page 9 thereof. If the end result of that process is a Board of Education vote sustaining any of the charges and the imposition of discipline by the Board upon the Plaintiff, all claims of a violation of due process through the process and procedure followed, including claims that the Plaintiff was denied the scope of discovery he considers to be necessary to be afforded due process, are subject to an Article 78 proceeding against the Board of Education, challenging the process and procedures followed as denying the Plaintiff due process. Santana v. Coughlin, 90 A.D. 2d 947, 948-949 (3d Dept. 1982); Soucy v. Bd. of Ed. of N Colonie Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 5, 41 A.D.2d 984, 984 (3d Dept. 1973) 6. I affirm that the foregoing statements are true. I am aware that if they are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Comi render an Order denying the application of the Plaintiff for a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining and restraining the commencement of the arbitration and hearing of the charges against the Plaintiff and granting the Defendants such other and fmiher relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: November 21, 2019 / MARK C. RUSHFIELD, ESQ. 3 3 of 3