Werkheiser v. Cnty. of Broome

655 F.Supp.3d 88

Samantha WERKHEISER, formerly known as Samantha Stone, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BROOME, Veronica Gorman, Thomas Jackson,City of Binghamton, Carl Peters, Charles Woody, and April Demer, Defendants.

3:22-CV-73 (MAD/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

Signed February 9, 2023

ARTHUR LARKIN, ESQ., HALE & MONICO LLC, 250 Park Avenue - 7th Floor, New York, New York 10177, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

ROBERT G. BEHNKE, ESQ., BROOME COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Broome County Office Building, 60 Hawley Street, P.O. Box 1766, Binghamton, New York 13902-1766, Attorneys for Defendants County of Broome, Veronica Gorman, and Thomas Jackson.

BRIAN M. SEACHRIST, ESQ., CITY OF BINGHAMTON CORPORATION COUNSEL, 38 Hawley Street, City Hall, Binghamton, New York 13901, Attorneys for Defendant City of Binghamton.

ALAN J. POPE, ESQ., CAROLINE LAUREN MYRDEK, ESQ., COUGLIN, GERHART LAW FIRM - BINGHAMTON OFFICE, 99 Corporate Drive, P.O. Box 2039, Binghamton, New York 13902, Attorneys for Defendants Carl Peters, Charles Woody, and April Demer.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Samantha Werkheiser ("Plaintiff") filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") on January 26, 2022, against Defendants County of Broome, Veronica Gorman, and Thomas Jackson ("County Defendants"), and City of Binghamton, April Demer, Carl Peters, Charles Woody ("City Defendants"), and ten John Doe law enforcement officials for the City or the County.¹ See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 6-14. Plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully prosecuted for two counts of predatory sexual assault against a child. See id. at ¶ 1. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges claims under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, failure to intervene, and Monell liability.

Currently before the Court are two motions to dismiss from Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 24, 25. Plaintiff opposes both motions. See Dkt Nos. 33, 39. For the reasons set forth below, County Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and City Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2011, Plaintiff's two daughters accused Plaintiff of abuse.² See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 17. At the time, the two daughters lived with their father—Plaintiff's ex-husband—following a custody battle between Plaintiff and said ex-husband. See id. at ¶ 24.

Plaintiff's daughters were interviewed by Defendants Peters, Demer, and Woody, all of whom were employed as investigators and/or police officers with the Binghamton Police Department. See id. at ¶ 46. Broadly stated, Plaintiff alleges that those investigatory interviews departed from accepted practices by

failing to do a practice interview about a neutral topic that would demonstrate the ground rules; repeatedly asking CW-1 leading, suggestive questions; failing to ask appropriate follow-up questions to find out facts about specific instances of purported "abuse"; allowing CW-1 to claim "abuse" in general terms, describing what she claimed "would" happen when Samantha supposedly abused her rather than describing specific instances of abuse; reinforcing CW-1's claims with lengthy commentary that accepted her claims without questioning them; and failing to ask open-ended questions and letting CW-1 answer them . . . .

Id. at ¶¶ 32-50.

With respect to Defendant Peters, Plaintiff specifically claims that he "did not ask appropriate, non-suggestive questions to follow up on the foregoing matters," and "violated accepted practices by asking CW-2 leading and suggestive questions, and telling her that 'these are things that shouldn't have happened to you,' and that 'none of this is your fault at all,' even before CW-2 had articulated any purported claims of abuse." Id. at ¶ 35. Moreover, "[c]ontrary to accepted practices, Defendant Peters failed to consider alternative explanations for the girls' claims of abuse[ ] and overlooked multiple 'red flags' that strongly suggested that CW-1's claims were false," Id. at ¶ 33, including allowing the daughters to bring in written lists of claims to the interview. See id. at ¶¶ 34, 42. Finally, "Defendant Peters also suggested that it was difficult to talk to a male officer about the alleged abuse," id. at ¶ 40, and that Defendant Peters "also read aloud from CW-2's written list and then asked leading, suggestive questions based on the list." Id. at ¶ 42. Defendant Woody observed Defendant Peters' interviews of both CW-1 and CW-2. See id. at ¶ 53. As to Defendant Demer, Plaintiff claims that she "had no training whatsoever regarding child sex abuse investigations," id. at ¶ 47, and made errors including

failing to do a practice interview about a neutral topic that would demonstrate the ground rules; by asking leading, suggestive questions that were intended to prompt CW-2 to accuse Samantha of wrongdoing; by reinforcing CW-2's claims by nodding and telling her that 'it's not your fault,' that she should 'be strong and get it out' and that she 'did a good job' during the interview; and by failing to ask any follow-up questions about specific incidents of purported abuse . . . .

Id. at ¶ 48. The children's stepmother was present for part of CW-2's interview. See id. at ¶ 50.

Five days later, Defendant Peters interviewed Plaintiff's wife Julie Werkheiser, who denied abusing the children and claimed these were false allegations encouraged by Plaintiff's ex-husband. See id. at ¶ 51. Defendant Peters then signed two felony complaints against Plaintiff, charging her with criminal sexual abuse in the first degree. See id. at ¶ 52. Defendant Woody filed the charges. See id. at ¶ 54. Plaintiff claims that these charges "were based solely on the flawed, suggestive interviews with CW-1 and CW-2 and the interview with Julie." Id. at ¶ 55. Plaintiff also alleges that under "accepted practices" the "flawed" interviews should have resulted in further investigations, not a criminal charge. Id. at ¶¶ 53, 56. Ultimately, Plaintiff claims Defendants "Peters, Woody[,] and Demer knew or should have known that CW-1's and CW-2's allegations of abuse were likely false, or at a minimum, that the allegations were full of red flags that warranted further investigation." Id. at ¶ 57.

Next, "on August 29, 2011, [Plaintiff] was arrested and arraigned on the felony complaints, and pleaded not guilty." Id. at ¶ 60. Plaintiff alleges that the Broome County District Attorney assigned to the case, Defendant Gorman, failed to investigate or substantiate the daughters' allegations and conducted improper interviews with the girls, including by failing to videotape or audio-record the interviews. See id. at ¶¶ 61-75. "Between August 2011, and February 2012, a period of approximately six months, [Defendant] Gorman and John Does ##1-10 met with CW-1 and CW-2 multiple times." Id. at ¶ 62. Plaintiff alleges "Gorman instructed CW-1 to prepare a written list of her claims of abuse and during Gorman's grand jury presentation, she marked the list as an exhibit and asked CW-1 to read from it," which was "contrary to accepted practices." Id. at ¶¶ 67-70. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Gorman "knew or should have known" that such "elicited testimony" from Plaintiff's daughters was "false." Id. at ¶ 76. Plaintiff further alleges "Gorman did not conduct further investigation, such as seeking their medical records from pediatricians, in order to see if any corroborating evidence existed," which is "contrary to accepted practices." Id. at ¶¶ 74-75. The grand jury then indicted Plaintiff, charging her with two counts of predatory sexual assault against a child based on alleged actions between 2003 and November 2007, even though that section of the Penal Law was only enacted in June 2006. See id. at ¶¶ 78-80. Plaintiff alleges "no evidence whatsoever corroborated the girls' claims," id. at ¶ 87, and that "[Defendant] Gorman's failure to take the foregoing steps, and intentional failure to direct others to do so, was unreasonable and contrary to accepted practices in the field of child sexual abuse investigations and prosecutions." Id. at ¶ 93. Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Gorman "overzealously sought and obtained an indictment based on conduct that occurred prior to enactment of the relevant statute." Id. at ¶ 3.

On May 8, 2013, a jury found Plaintiff guilty of one count of criminal sexual abuse in the first degree of CW-1, and not guilty on the other count of criminal sexual abuse of CW-2. See id. at ¶ 101. Plaintiff was sentenced to twelve years to life in prison. See id. at ¶ 102. On November 12, 2015, the Third Department reversed Plaintiff's conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial. See People v. Stone, 133 A.D.3d 982, 985, 20 N.Y.S.3d 447 (3d Dep't 2015). The Appellate Division explained that a new trial was needed for count one because of "erroneous admission of bolstering hearsay" and that a "defect in the indictment [ ] appears to be a factual, nonjurisdictional one . . . that can and should be resolved before a second trial." Stone, 133 A.D.3d at 985, 20 N.Y.S.3d 447.

On remand, the trial court appointed Defendant Jackson as special prosecutor to re-try Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 110. Defendant Jackson elected not to re-present the case to a new grand jury and the trial court determined that the original grand jury found sufficient evidence to charge Plaintiff with a lesser included offense of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. See id. at ¶¶ 111-13. Defendant Jackson did not file an indictment reflecting the lesser included offense. See id. at ¶ 113. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jackson failed to investigate or substantiate any of the daughters' claims. See id. at ¶ 115. Further, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Jackson "had little or no experience handling child sex abuse cases, . . . had received little or no training in this area[, and] did not conduct an appropriate investigation of the charges or the evidence...