Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Judge Rearden adopted the recommendation, granted dismissal, and dismissed Friedman’s claims with prejudice.
Robert J. Friedman’s claims against Mount Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, Dr. Joy Riskin, Carlo Liggio, and Marcy Kopakin were dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital, Robert J. Friedman, representing himself, claimed that several defendants sexually abused him during a 1987 hospital admission and improperly gave him Haldol. He sued under New York’s Adult Survivors Act and based on the medication allegations.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that earlier litigation and a 2008 release barred the claims or, alternatively, that the claims were legally insufficient. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the entire case without allowing another amendment. Friedman objected, but the district court found that his objections mostly repeated arguments he had already made.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden overruled Friedman’s objections, adopted the recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed all claims with prejudice under the rule governing legally insufficient complaints. The court also directed the clerk to close the case and mail Friedman a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Friedman v. MT. Sinai Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-01142
- Rearden
- May 9, 2025
Background
Robert J. Friedman, acting without a lawyer, brought claims against Mount Sinai Hospital, also identified as Mt. Sinai Hospital, Dr. Shelley Epstein, Dr. Joy Riskin, Carlo Liggio, and Marcy Kopakin. The opinion states that Friedman alleged Epstein, Riskin, Liggio, and Kopakin sexually abused him during his admission to Mount Sinai Hospital on October 4, 1987, and improperly prescribed or administered Haldol from that date until his release on November 22, 1987. He asserted claims under New York’s Adult Survivors Act and claims concerning the alleged forced use of Haldol.
Friedman added Liggio through an amended complaint and Kopakin through a later filing that the court treated as a second amended complaint. The opinion notes that Kopakin had not been served.
Motion and Report and Recommendation
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing claim preclusion—also called res judicata—and issue preclusion—also called collateral estoppel—or, alternatively, that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be granted, that the action be dismissed in its entirety, and that Friedman not be allowed to amend again.
Friedman objected to the recommendation. The district court explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while general objections or repeated arguments are reviewed for clear error. The court found that Friedman’s objections mostly repeated arguments from his earlier opposition to dismissal. The court also declined to consider a new argument that could have been raised before the magistrate judge.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden overruled Friedman’s objections and adopted Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court agreed with the recommendation that Friedman should not receive another opportunity to amend. It specifically stated that the Adult Survivors Act’s removal of a statute-of-limitations bar for certain sexual-assault claims did not change the effect of Friedman’s 2008 release, as discussed in the recommendation.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed all of Friedman’s claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which applies when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Friedman a copy of the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.