SUMMONS + COMPLAINT April 20, 2021

On April 20, 2021 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Jane Doe - 19240, and County Of Dutchess, The Children'S Home Of Poughkeepsie, for Torts - Child Victims Act in the District Court of Dutchess County.

Preview
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 CHILDREN'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 scrs:::d 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 Plaintiffs attorneys within twenty days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the

day of service, where service is made by delivery upon oupersonally within the state, or, within

30 days after completion of service where service i ade in any other manner. In case of your

failure to appear or answer, judgment will be take against you by default for the relief demanded

in the complaint.

Dated: NEW YORK, NY
Aril 19, 2021

Ro e J. G stein, Esq.
GREE TEINkMILBA ER, LLP

Attorney or Plaintiff

JANE DO - 19240
1825 Park venue
9th Floor
New York, N 10035

(212) 685-8500
Our File No. 19240

1 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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

2 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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,
Plaintiff, yggypygp
-against-
COMPLAINT

THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE
and COUNTY OF DUTCHESS,

Defendants.
-------- ------- ---X

Plaintiff by her attorneys, GREENSTEIN & MILBAUER, LLP complaining of the

Defendants, lespectfully alleges, upon information and belief:

From approximately 1978-1979, Plaintiff, then a minor, was sexually abused on multiple

occasions while a resident at The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie, a facility where the Plaintiff was

placed by the Defendant, 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 negligently allowed minor residents to

sexually abuse other minor residents. This lawsuit arises out of Plaintiff's significant damages from

that sexual abuse, described below. Plaintiff, by and through Plaintiff's attorneys, states and alleges

as follows:

3 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

1. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff was a resident of The Children's Home of

Poughkeepsie.

2. At all times material, Plaintiff resided in the State of New York.

B. Defendants

3. Whenever reference is made to any Defendant entity, such reference includes that entity, its

parent companies, snhsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, and successors. In addition, whenever

reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of any entity, the allegation means that the entity

engaged in the act, deed, or trai£saction by or through itsofficers, directors, agents, employees, or

representatives while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction

of the entity's business or affairs.

4. The Children's Home of Pougbleepsie is a private, non-profit residential treatment facility

and school for children who have suffered abuse, neglect, and maltreatment

5. At alltimes material, The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie was and continues to be an

organization and/or entity which includes, but is not limited to, civil corporations, decision making

entities, officials, and employees, authorized to conduct business, and conducting business in the

State of New York with itsprincipal place of business at Poughkeepsie, New York.

6. The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie is a domestic not-for -profit corporation established in

or about 1847.

7. The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie has several programs for at risk youth, including, but

4 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

not limited to, schools and other educational programs, residential treatment, and psychological

treatment. The Children's Home of Poughkeepsie, through its officials, has complete control over

those activities and programs involving 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, Defendant County of Dutchess (hereinafter referred to as

"County") was and continues to be a governmcñtal entity that was created and authorized under the

laws of the State of New York, with headquarters located at 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie, NY

12601.

9. At all times herein mentioned, the County maintained and continues to maintain multiple

departments, including the Department of Community and Family Services (hereafter "DCFS").

DCFS is located at 60 Market St.,Poughkeepsie, NY 12601.

10. At all times herein mentioned, DCFS has been wholly operated, managed, maintained, and

controlled by Defendant County.

11. At alltimes herein mentioned, Defendant County DCFS has provided child welfare, including

foster care services, nutritional services, juvenile justice, and educational 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 maintained the authority and assumed the responsibility to

and oversee the welfare of minors for various reasons were adjudged to require non-
supervise, who,

familial domestic supervision and maintenance, including residential foster care and/or residential

treatment services.

5 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 because the unlawful conduct complaiñed of herein occurred in New

York.

14. Venue is proper pursuant to C.P.L.R. §503 in that Dutchess County is the principal place of

business of Defendant County and its department DCFS. In addition, many of the events giving rise

to this action occurred in Dutchess County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Backgmund

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 assaulted 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 governmental authorities.

20. At no time were any changes made in discipline, programming and/or supervision or

otherwise to protect Plaintiff from further abuse.

6 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 disclosing allegations of sexual abuse.

22. Plaintiff's relationship as a vulnerabic 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 relationship with Plaintiff during the duration of

Plaintiff's residency at CHP.

25. Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was dependent 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 residential treatment center. Plaintiff, as a minor and vulnerable child, was fully

dependent on Defendants County, DCFS and CHP to meet all of her basic needs. Defendants County,

DCFS and CHP had custody of Plaintiff and accepted the entrustment of Plaintiff and, therefore, had

responsibility for Plaintiff's welfare and authority over Plaintiff.

26. Plaintiff was placed in a position where the youngest and smallest residents 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 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and its department, 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 placing children in residential foster care and residential treatment facilities

by investigating the placement facility pre-placement, 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 relationship was implicated by placement at CHP.

33. As a result of Plaintiff's minority, and by Defendant County and DCFS's undertaking 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 this position of power and control. This power

and control prevented the then minor Plaintiff from effectively protecting herself.

35. As a result of the foregoing Defendant County and DCFS had a special relationship with and

8 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

were responsible for the welfare of Plaintiff.

36. In light of their superior knowledge about the risk of sexual abuse in CHP and/or residential

foster homes and residential treatment programs, generally, and/or the risks that its residential 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 parêñts to place minor children in residential foster care and/or residential

treatment programs with which they contracted, including CHP.

38. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant County and DCFS undertook the counseling and

guidance of minor children, including Plaintiff; promoted their residential foster home and/or

residential 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 residential foster care and/residential treatment school for neglected

and/or troubled and abused children and/or residential treatment programs.

39. Defendant County and DCFS held out CHP as a safe enviroñmcnt for children to work, study

and reside.

40. Defendant County and DCFS owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm because

Defendant County and DCFS's actions and inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff,

41. Defeñdant County and DCFS's breaches of their duties included, but were not limited to:

negligent investigation, scrceñiñg, vetting, assessment and monitoring of CHP; negligent

investigation, screening, vetting, assessment and monitoring of minors placed at CHP; negligent

placement and retention of minors, including Plaintiff at CHP; failure to acquire the amount and type

9 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

of information necessary to protect children residing at CHP from sexual abuse; failure to monitor

CHP's compliance with the applicable standard of care for child safety; failure to have sufficient

policies and procedures to prevent child sexual abuse at CHP; failure to properly implemeñt 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 prevent 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 determine whether employees at CHP were adequately trained to

identify signs of sexual abuse at CHP; failure to conduct periodic assessments interviews and/or

investigations 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 children 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

epresentatives 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 reasuitable and prudent governmental agency would have conducted a

thorough investigation of the prevalence and occur ence of child sexual abuse at CHP.

10 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 PlaintifE

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 continue at CHP.

50. Defendant County and DCFS failed to provide the necessary 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 incomplete, 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 County and DCFS systematic policy choices limited the amount of staffing,

resources, and available training that would have prevented widespread abuse in foster care

institutions and/or residential treatment facilities such as CHP.

56. These systematic policy choices embodied a quintessential deliberate indifference to the plight

and suffering of vulnerable children placed in residential foster care and/or residential treatment

11 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

facilities such as CHP.

57. Defendant County and DCFS knew and/or reasoñably 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 residential treatment facilities such as CHP in order to

prevent child sexual abuse from occurring.

59. As a direct result of the negligence of Defendant County and DCFS, Plaintiff sustained

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 relatioñship with Plaintiff and other minor residents at CHP.

The special relationship existed because of the high degree of vulñcrability of the children entrusted

in their care. As a result of this high degree of vulnerability and risk of sexual abuse inherent in such

a special relationship, Defendant had a duty to establish measures of protection of children not

necessary for persons who are older and better able to safeguard themselves.

62. Arising from the special relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of

12
..

12 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of

reasoñable care to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable criminal misconduct, including child sexual

abuse.

64. Arising from the special relationship with Plaintiff, Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of

reasonable care to conduct a reasonable pre-admission 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, Defendant CHP also had a duty to properly train and

supervise its employees, agents, represëñtatives, and administrators to identify signs of child sexual

abuse by other minor residents.

66. Arising from the special relationship Defendant CHP had with the child residents in its facility

and the degree of control Defendant maintained of minor residents in its facility 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 its facility

and the degree of control Defendant maintained of the minor residents in itsfacility Defendant CHP

had a duty to adequately supervise the minor residents and to prevent them from sexually abusing

other child residents.

68. Defendant CHP owed a duty to Plaintiff arising from its care and control of minor residents

and the in loco parentis relaticaship itmaintained with such residents to exercise reasonable care to

ensure that they were not sexually molested and abused.

13 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

69. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty of reasóü&ble care because itsolicited youth by and

through their parents, family courts, community and psychiatric social workers, and other coüüüanity

resources for participation in their youth programs; encouraged youth and referral sources to have the

youth participate in their programs; undertook custody of minor children, including Plaintiff;

promoted their facilities 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 of the minor Plaintiff, Defendant CHP established an in loco parentis

relationship with Plaintiff from which arose a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury. Defendant CHP

entered into a fiduciary relationship with Plaintiff by undertaking the custody, supervision of,and/or

care of the 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 position 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 environ-ment for Plaintiff

along with other minor residents who participated in their programs. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a

duty to properly oversee and supervise Plaintiff's care to prevent harm from foreseeable 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 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
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 enrollment and participation of the minor Plaintiff as a participant in its

residential services and programs, Defendant CHP assumed and/or created a duty to properly

supervise Plaintiff to prevent harm to her from generally foreseeable dangers.

73. Defendant CHP owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from harm beeâüse Plaintiff was an

invitee on itsproperty and certain minor residents under their care and control posed a dangerous

condition on Defendant CHP's property.

74. Defendant CHP knew or should have known that other minor residents posed a threat of harm

to Plaintiff on Defendant's property and in itsprograms and facilities.

75. Defendant CHP breached itsduties to Plaintiff. Defendant failed to use ordinary care in

determining whether itsfacilities were safe and/or determining whether ithad sufficient information

to represent its facilities as safe. Defendant's breaches of itsduties include, but are not limited to:

causing, permitting and allowing the sexual abuse and molestation of Plaintiff on itspremises and in

itsresidential treatment facility; failure to protect Plaintiff from a known danger; failure to have

sufficient policies and procedures in place to prevent child sex abuse; failure to properly implement

policies and procedures to prevent child sex abuse; failure to properly and adequately monitor,

supervise and control other minor residents on itspremises and in its facilities to prevent the sexual

abuse of Plaintiff from occurring and continuing; failure to take reasonable measures to ensure that

policies and procedures to prevent child sex abuse were effective; failure to adequately inform

families and children of the risks of child sex abuse; failure to investigate risks of child molestation;

failure to properly screen and/or train itsminor residents; failure to educate and/or train minor

residents about the dangers of sexual abuse by other children; failure to prevent sexual abuse of

15 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

minors from occurring on itspremises; failure to have any outside agency review their safety

procedures; failure to protect the children in their programs from child sex abuse; failure to adhere to

the applicable standard of care for child safety; failure to investigate the amount and type of

information necessary to represent the institution, programs, employees and other minor residents as

safe; and, failure to train their employees, agents, representatives and/or administrators properly to

identify signs of child molestation by other children.

76. Defendant CHP also breached its duty to Plaintiff failing to warn Plaintiff of the risks that
by

certaiñ other residents posed and the risks of child sexual abuse in residential programs and facilities

for minors.

77. Defendant CHP also failed to warn Plaintiff about itsknowledge of child sexual abuse at

CHP.

78. Defendant CHP additionally violated a legal duty by failing to report known and/or suspected

abuse of children by other minor residents to the police, child protective services and other law

enforcement agencies.

79. Prior to the sexual abuse of Plaintiff, Defendant CHP knew or should have known that certain

residents were not fitto reside with and/or be with other residents.

80. Defendant CHP knew or should have known of the propensities of certain residents to engage

in sexual abuse of other children, and of the risk to Plaintiff's safety. Alternatively, Defendant CHP

knew or should have known that itdid not have sufficient information about whether or not certain

residents in its facilities and programs at CHP were safe.

81. Defendant CHP knew or should have known that there was a risk of child sex abuse for

children residing at CHP. Alternatively, Defendant knew or should have known that it did not have

16 of 31
FILED: DUTCHESS COUNTY CLERK 04/20/2021 08:20 AM INDEX NO. 2021-51440
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/20/2021

sufficient information about whether or not there was a risk of child sex abuse for children residing at

CHP.

82. Defendant CHP knew or should have known that certain residents had molested and/or

sexually abused other children, including Plaintiff. Defendant knew or should have known that child

molesters have a high rate of recidivism. Defendant knew or should have known that there was a

specific danger of child sex abuse for children residing at CHP.

83. Despite Defendant CHP's knowledge, Defendant CHP negligently accepted children and gave

their assurances that itsresidents were fitto reside with and be with other children; that they would

not sexually molest children; and/or that they would not injure children.

84. Defendant CHP's actions and inactions created a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff. As a

vulnerable child residing at CHP and participating in the programs CHP offered to minors, Plaintiff

was a foreseeable victim. Additionally, as a vulnerable child to whom other minor residents had

access, Plaintiff was a foreseeable victim.

85. Defendant CHP breeched itsduties to Plaintiff by failing to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff's

family that other residents posed a risk to Plaintiff of sexually abusing her.

86. Defendant CHP failed to warn Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family about substantial and material

knowledge ithad about the risks of child sexual abuse at CHP.

87. By permitting and allowing certain residents in itsresidential treatment facility and programs,

Defendant CHP affirmatively represented to minor children, including Plaintiff, and their families

that said residents did not pose a threat to children, did not have a history of molesting and/or

sexually abusing other children, that Defendant did not know said residents had a history of molesting

children, and that Defendant di

Case Info

Judge

Maria G Rosa Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 20, 2021

Case Filing Date

April 20, 2021

County

Parties

COUNTY OF DUTCHESS Defendant
GASPARINI, LOUIS U Attorney for the Defendant
JANE DOE - 19240 Plaintiff
LOFTUS, CAROLYN ANN Attorney for the Defendant
MILBAUER, SETH Attorney for the Plaintiff
Pitcoff, Kenneth E Attorney for the Defendant
ROSEDALE, REBECCA JUNE Attorney for the Defendant
THE CHILDREN'S HOME OF POUGHKEEPSIE Defendant
SIDNEY ROSEN Attorney
LOUIS UCCELLO Attorneys for Defendants
ROBERT GREENSTEIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARISSA PADOVANO Attorneys for Defendants
BARTOLOMEO PITTARI Attorney
PAUL OLIVERI Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: Jane Doe - 19240 v. The Children'S Home Of Poughkeepsie, County Of Dutchess

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties