Sun v. Saslovsky, Esq.

Background

Yi Sun, who appeared without a lawyer, originally filed the action in New York Supreme Court. Defendants New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) removed it to federal court. Sun sued 30 defendants, alleging violations of federal constitutional rights and state law and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The amended complaint described alleged sexual assaults and alleged misconduct by government employees, judges, attorneys, witnesses, private parties, and others connected to family-court and child-custody matters.

The court interpreted the amended complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which permits claims against persons acting under state authority for violations of federal rights, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) concerning conspiracies. The court also considered possible state-law claims.

Reasons for dismissal

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims against the New York Family Courts and the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment because the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states and state entities from suit in federal court. It dismissed the claims against Family Court Judges Clark Richardson and Marybeth S. Rochroath and Administrative Law Judge Rantideva Singh because judges are generally immune from suit for actions taken as part of their judicial duties.

The court dismissed damages claims against ACS attorneys Kira Lecznar and Zulma Montanez because government attorneys are immune from damages claims for advocacy closely connected to judicial or administrative proceedings. It also dismissed damages claims based on testimony by Margaret O’Mara, Tiffany Sylvestre, Ziwei Ram, Nicole Richards, and Dr. Charles L. Bardes because witnesses have immunity from § 1983 damages claims arising from their testimony, even when the testimony is alleged to be false. The court characterized these dismissed claims as frivolous and required Sun not to include them in a second amended complaint.

The court dismissed some claims against the NYPD and ACS without prejudice because they duplicated claims in Sun’s other federal case, Yi Sun v. N.Y.C. Police Department, No. 1:18-CV-11002 (S.D.N.Y.). For the remaining claims against the NYPD and ACS, the court treated the claims as claims against New York City because those agencies cannot be sued separately. The court held that Sun had not alleged facts showing that a city policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violations. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim but granted leave to replead specified claims involving alleged retaliation by NYPD officers, involuntary psychiatric treatment allegedly caused by ACS, and an alleged false arrest and detention.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 claims against private individuals and entities—including attorneys, law firms, a legal-aid organization, family members, a foster parent, Hamilton College, and others—for failure to allege that they acted under state authority. The court granted leave to replead those claims with facts showing that the defendants acted pursuant to state authority rather than in a private capacity. It separately dismissed claims against ACS employees Katrina Guerrero, Mrs. Foster, and Jesse Almonte and the private foster agency Forestdale because the complaint did not adequately allege their personal involvement or, as to Forestdale, a policy causing a constitutional violation. The court granted leave to replead those claims as well, including the required facts for any conspiracy theory.

The court dismissed the conspiracy claims under § 1983 and § 1985(3) for failure to provide specific facts showing an agreement among the defendants. It allowed Sun to replead those claims with additional facts meeting the stated requirements.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain lifted the previously imposed stay and dismissed the action. The federal claims dismissed as frivolous could not be reasserted. The remaining federal claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim, with permission to file a second amended complaint by September 21, 2020. If Sun did not file that pleading on time, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, except to the extent claims against the NYPD and ACS overlapped with claims in the other case. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, denied as moot motions and requests for relief that it had not previously addressed, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.