Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Assault. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Assault. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, June 27, 2009

PS 20 Principal Sean Keaton is Arraigned For Assaulting UFT Rep. Robert Segarra


Keaton Arraigned on Assault Charge
By Andy Newman,
LINK

P.S. 20 Principal Sean Keaton was formally arraigned today on misdemeanor assault charges at criminal court in Brooklyn. Mr. Keaton’s lawyer, Richard F. X. Guay, (pictured at right) entered a not guilty plea on Mr. Keaton’s behalf as he stood beside him in the arraignment courtroom at 120 Schermerhorn Street. The case now proceeds to prosecutors for further action. His next tentative court date is Aug. 3.

Mr. Keaton, 38, was arrested last month and accused of third-degree assault against the school’s teacher’s union rep, Robert Segarra. Mr. Keaton is accused of repeatedly punching and kicking Mr. Segarra during a disciplinary hearing at which Mr. Segarra was representing a special ed teacher.


School principal busted for beating teacher at corporal punishment hearing
By Jeff Wilkins and Elizabeth Lazarowitz
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Updated Thursday, May 21st 2009, 6:23 PM
LINK

It was an object lesson in irony.

A Brooklyn principal was arrested Thursday on charges of beating up a teacher - at a corporal punishment hearing. (pictured at right is teacher Robert Segarra, who shows injuries he claims were inflicted by Principal Keaton)

Principal Sean Keaton of Public School 20 allegedly punched and kicked teacher Robert Segarra during a heated exchange over accusations against another educator.

"You need to stop. I'm tired of you," Keaton said after approaching Segarra, 49, from the other side of the table.

"You need to stop. You're in my face," Segarra said he replied.

Keaton began poking him in the face, then suddenly punched him and knocked him to the ground, where he kicked him, Segarra charged.

Segarra, 49, said he refused to fight back.

"Even though he's out of his mind, he's still my supervisor," he said.

Keaton, 38, was arrested around 11 a.m., charged with misdemeanor assault and given a summons to appear in court.

He was removed from the school pending an investigation, Department of Education spokeswoman Marge Feinberg said.

The hearing was called after two students accused a special education teacher at the Clinton Hill school of corporal punishment.

Keaton and an assistant principal were hashing it out with the accused teacher and Segarra, who is also a union official, when tempers flared.

"[Principals] have no right to harass or bully teachers, much less physically assault them," United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said after the fracas.

She said the allegations, if true, are "beyond the pale."

Keaton, who started at PS 20 as a substitute teacher in 1992, has been principal since 2005 and is a divisive figure.

Although some parents praised him Thursday, saying he was "very good with children" and a "good educator," controversy has swirled around him for months.

Anonymous comments at Insideschools.org have called him "a disaster. [He's] authoritarian, defensive ... hostile and even abusive to some parents (including the president of the PTA!), sent angry e-mails to parents who dared challenge his authority, and responded defensively to any suggestions."

They complained he "actively discouraged" volunteerism and parent involvement, yells at the kids and will deny an entire grade recess for one student's infraction.

"Shouting at children and imposing blanket punishments seems to be the rule at PS 20," one comment said.

"He's a hothead," said a school employee who asked not to be named.

"I've certainly seen him get angry before," he said. "The smallest things can set him off."

elazarowitz@nydailynews.com
With Jonathan Lemire


Eyewitness News
Principal Arrested for Beating Teacher at Fort Greene School A public school principal in Fort Greene was arrested at P.S. 20 yesterday for allegedly assaulting a teacher during a meeting to discuss allegations of corporal punishment against a special ed teacher. Principal Sean Keaton has been the target of intense criticism from parents lately—many of them newer, more affluent arrivals to Fort Greene, who see him as authoritarian and resistant to parental involvement. According to The Local, "the community conversation about him often seemed to break down along class lines... with working-class parents defending him. There was often a racial component to the debate as well (Mr. Keaton is black)."

The critics had gotten under Keaton's skin in recent weeks, and last month the Local posted an open letter from Keaton explaining, "my feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain." Also bruised is Robert Segarra (pictured), a teacher and union representative at P.S. 20. He attended yesterday's meeting to represent the female special ed teacher, and he says Keaton went berserk after he demanded to know what witnesses had said about the teacher:

I said, “Mr. Keaton, you’re on top of me.” He said, “That’s right, I’m on top of you.” I said, “You’re in my face.” He said, “That’s right, I’m in your face,” and with every word, he poked me in the face, in the bridge of my nose. “Now you’re touching me,” I said. Then he swung and punched me. I said, “Now you’re hitting me.”
He’s got his knee on top of one of my legs and he’s punching me. He’s holding me down in the chair and he’s whaling on me. I’m getting punched and I’m still in the chair. Now after about 5 of these shots, I’m on the floor. And he’s kicking me. He’s kicking me over and over and over again.

But as he’s kicking me I yell out, “I’m not hitting him! I’m not hitting him! I’m not hitting him!” I’m just lying on the floor trying to cover myself up. Every time I said, “I’m not hitting him,” I got another kick or another punch or another scrape or another strike. I got hit at least 20 times. I finally struggle, and now I’m standing.

911 was called, and police came to take statements and arrest Keaton, who was charged with third-degree assault, a misdemeanor, and released. (He's been reassigned to an administrative job away from the school pending the outcome of the investigation.) According to a statement from the Teachers Union, Segerra was treated for cuts and bruises at North Shore Hospital, and he tells the Local, "The police actually took a picture of the back of my head next to his shoe. They said, ‘Look, the treadmark matches.'"

Head(case) of the class: Brawling Brooklyn principal is a NY knucklehead
Saturday, May 23rd 2009, 4:00 AM
LINK

For taking the notion of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do to blatantly absurd heights, we bestow today's coveted laurels on Sean Keaton, principal of Brooklyn's Public School 20.

There Keaton was at a hearing into charges, filed by two special education students, that a teacher had engaged in corporal punishment against them, a very big no-no.

And there Keaton was getting riled in a discussion that involved an assistant principal and another teacher, Robert Segarra, who happens to be a United Federation of Teachers representative.

And there Keaton was, according to his arrest paperwork, punching Segarra, knocking him to the ground and kicking him, all of which are, of course, big no-nos - at a hearing into corporal punishment or anywhere else.

The courts will determine whether Keaton is guilty of misdemeanor assault, but it does seem certain that he did, in fact, lay at least a finger on one of his subordinates. And so he has been temporarily exiled from PS 20 to a Department of Education office, perhaps for a hearing into his own whacked-out conduct.

READER COMMENT

Meowmeister May 23, 2009 10:12:05 AM Report Offensive Post
This principal is a psycho. And the corporal punishment charges were trumped-up charges by this same principal, who manipulated the special ed students into doing it to help him get rid of the teacher. He was called out on it, and that is why he attacked the union rep. Klein's anti-union brainwashing campaign at its worst.


June 27, 2009
As Cultures Clash, Brooklyn Principal Faces Assault Charges
By ANDY NEWMAN, NY TIMES

On Monday morning, the fifth graders of Public School 20 in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, formed a sea of gold and maroon caps and gowns in the sanctuary of a nearby church. They sang a Miley Cyrus song, heard a speech from their 11-year-old valedictorian, reaped awards.

Missing from the graduation festivities, though, was the school’s principal, who during four years had won admirers for improving test scores, starting a host of cultural programs and taking troubled students under his wing. Though the graduating class had invited him to speak, education officials would not allow it.

The principal, Sean Keaton, 38, (pictured at right) was removed from the school last month, accused of repeatedly punching and kicking a teacher’s union representative during a meeting. On Thursday, while the rest of P.S. 20 savored the bittersweet joys of the last full day of school, Mr. Keaton was arraigned in court on assault charges.

Not all of the parents were sad to see Mr. Keaton go. His arrest capped years of growing rancor over the school’s direction and his often prickly leadership style, much of which precipitated in the crucible of neighborhood and school-related blogs, where Mr. Keaton himself sometimes joined the conversation. And dire as it is, the situation at P.S. 20 is a version of a conflict playing out in schools in gentrifying neighborhoods all over the city, particularly Brooklyn.

In the resurgent brownstone bastions of Fort Greene, Boerum Hill and the fringes of Park Slope, affluent parents with one set of expectations for their children’s education — progressive, hands-on, emphasizing freedom — are clashing with longtime, working-class residents who prefer stricter, more structured educational models like the one Mr. Keaton favored, leaving principals caught in the crossfire.

“It’s going to be really hard to find principals who can serve the different families that make up their population and can still keep the lights on,” said Pamela Wheaton, the director of insideschools.org, an independent site about the city’s public schools.

At P.S. 20, some of the conflict has been tinged with race: Mr. Keaton is black, as are three-quarters of the students, while many of the families who said they found him hard to work with are white. Much of it has to do with class. Some comes down to personal style: Even many of Mr. Keaton’s supporters say he can be abrasive and inclined to escalate rather than defuse tensions.

But the result has been a school community divided and a principal who seemed to feel besieged. Mr. Keaton, who has declined to be interviewed since his arrest, told a group of parents on a school tour last fall when asked what he envisioned for the school if money were no object, “Quite honestly, I’m all out of ideas for this school.”

Mr. Keaton, a tall slender man with a master’s degree from City College, was named principal in 2005 after seven years as a teacher and assistant principal at the school, a large brick box set among town houses on Adelphi Street.

Ms. Wheaton, of insideschools.org, said that when she met with Mr. Keaton early in his tenure, “He said: ‘I look out the window and I see parents walking by the school. Why is that? They should come in and take a look and give us a chance.’ ”

Some of them did. Dara Furlow, a magazine marketer, wrote an article in early 2007 for a local magazine, The Hill, about her search for a school. At P.S. 20, she wrote, she was “amazed by the small class size, large airy classrooms, orderly hallways covered with children’s art, the computer lab and the science room with its spacious greenhouse” and “particularly impressed with the young, ambitious principal.”

In 2007, enrollment at the school rose for the first time in more than a decade. Scores on standardized tests increased, too, though roughly in line with the overall improvement in District 13, which includes Fort Greene.

But tensions were growing. The approach to the children that some parents found firm and fatherly others deemed tyrannical and abusive. Many parents said that the more they tried to get involved in the daily life of the school, the more Mr. Keaton resisted and seemed to resent their efforts and presence.

The P.T.A., of which Ms. Furlow was then president, complained in 2007 that Mr. Keaton refused to give it a copy of the school budget, though the Education Department said that principals were not then required to share the documents the P.T.A. had requested. Parents of children in the younger grades said they were blocked — sometimes physically, by Mr. Keaton — from walking their children to class in the morning. Mr. Keaton also shut down a “parent room” at the school, where parents could meet during the day. One of the mainstays of the parent room, Cynthia Howell, the mother of a third grader, said Mr. Keaton barred her from entering the building.

Around this time, the Education Department’s chief parent engagement officer, Martine G. Guerrier, met with a group of P.S. 20 parents and Mr. Keaton to try to smooth out relations.

Although Mr. Keaton retained — and still retains — the support of most of the school’s families, Ms. Furlow and other disillusioned parents began transferring their children.

“My child had wonderful teachers,” Ms. Furlow wrote to a New York Times blog, the Local. “But Mr. Keaton’s unwillingness to admit deficiencies and work for positive change collaboratively with parents made it impossible for us to stay.”

For the 2008-9 school year, enrollment dropped 9 percent, to 399. A few blocks away, meanwhile, buzz was growing about P.S. 11, a growing school where the principal was perceived as welcoming parents of all educational philosophies.

Then, in March, the city announced that one of its three new citywide gifted-and-talented programs would be at P.S. 20. This ostensible good news set off more criticism on the blogs, of Mr. Keaton and of the city’s decision.

In April, Mr. Keaton posted a letter to the “Fort Greene Community” on The Local. He listed goals he had met, including raising test scores and forming partnerships with community institutions. But he also talked about the toll the turmoil was taking. He noted that a commenter on one Internet board had called him “Principal Mugabe.”

“My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain,” he wrote. “I wonder what it feels like to receive support in the areas of grant writing, parent newsletters, real fund-raising, enrichment, Web site design and team building like some of my colleagues in our school districts.”

He offered to meet with his critics, then withdrew the invitation. In an interview on April 21, he said of the new wave of parents : “I’ve never understood what parents wanted, except to be able to come in when they want, to come in and sit in the classroom. And you can’t do that in Park Slope, you can’t do it on the Upper West Side, nor on the Upper East Side. Why should you be able to do that at P.S. 20?”

On May 21, Mr. Keaton summoned a special education teacher to his office to discuss an allegation that she had used corporal punishment on a student. Robert Segarra, a union representative and kindergarten teacher at the school, came as her advocate.

Mr. Segarra (picture of bruise at left) said that at one point, Mr. Keaton began poking him and, when Mr. Segarra would not back down, hitting him. Mr. Segarra, 49, said he never lifted a finger as Mr. Keaton punched him to the ground and hit or kicked him at least 20 times.

Mr. Segarra had bruises on his neck, head and arms. The police said a stomp print on his head matched the tread of Mr. Keaton’s shoe.

Mr. Keaton’s lawyer, Richard F. X. Guay, who entered a not-guilty plea on Mr. Keaton’s behalf in criminal court on Thursday, said that his client was “presumed innocent by law” and “eager to be vindicated in our justice system.”

The Department of Education reassigned Mr. Keaton to administrative duties at another location, pending the outcome of his case.

On Monday, in front of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, where the graduation was held, Mr. Keaton’s supporters remained steadfast. “He’s straightforward and he pulls no punches,” said Kassim Sykes, 34, a delivery driver and the parent of a graduating fifth grader. “He gives it to you in the raw, and I respect that.”

Other parents agreed. “He should have been there,” said Marisia Rivera, a former member of the P.T.A. “When his name came up, all the kids turned around. They expected him to pop in any second.”

At a bus stop around the corner, though, Ms. Rivera, 41, an aircraft cleaner, offered a more balanced assessment. “When it comes to the kids, he’s No. 1,” she said. “But he can be evil. When you see too much of what goes on in the school, that’s when he doesn’t want you around. If he thinks you’re trying to bring him down, he’ll bring you down first.”

Whether or not Mr. Keaton returns to P.S. 20 in September, the new gifted program will not be there. The Education Department canceled it for the school last week. “We were getting indications that many parents would not accept their assignments to P.S. 20,” said Andrew Jacob, a department spokesman. “There wasn’t enough parent demand to open the program.”

modern dialogue
After Web criticism, Fort Greene principal requests public meeting
Posted By Elizabeth Green On April 21, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
LINK

A public school principal in Fort Greene is asking for a public, face-to-face meeting with concerned community members after Internet and newspaper reports described dissatisfaction with his leadership.

One report [1], in the Brooklyn Paper, said unhappiness with the principal, Sean Keaton, of the Clinton Hill School, P.S. 20, is behind a surge of interest in the nearby Community Roots charter school. Another report [2], at Insideschools.org [3], includes a parent describing Keaton as “authoritarian,” “hostile,” and “abusive.” The frustration comes as a flood of middle class families are moving to the Brooklyn neighborhood – and often searching for options outside P.S. 20, their zoned school. The Brooklyn Paper reported that only 27% of kindergarten-aged students zoned for P.S. 20 attend it.

Parents posting in the comments sections of the Times blog and at Insideschools said they feel Keaton shuts them out of the school. One said that he has a “closed door policy to the parents.”

Keaton has in the past issued replies to Insideschools defending himself. Today, he replied to the dismal characterization today in an open letter submitted to the comments section of the New York Times’ new local blog [4] for the Fort Greene and Clinton Hill sections of Brooklyn. The letter acknowledges that many have expressed concerns with the school, including some comments that Keaton says tied him to Robert Mugabe and Adolf Hitler. (For the record, I can’t find any such comments.)

Keaton, in his letter, says that the comments are difficult for him to deal with because he feels he’s accomplished a lot at the school, including partnerships with local museums, rising test scores, and a new citywide gifted and talented program that’s part of the Bloomberg administration’s recent expansion of gifted programs. [5] “My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened,” he writes. Then Keaton asks readers to bring their grievances to him in public, face-to-face — a desire Keaton just reiterated in a comment [6]:

I believe this spirited debate warrants a face-to-face conversation. Someone please suggest potential dates, times, and location for a meeting. I will attend!

So far, responses focus on concerns about Keaton’s writing skills and questions about the difference between “progressive” and “traditional” styles of education. No one has responded with a specific time to hold a meeting.

The controversial principal of Fort Greene’s PS 20 was arrested last Thursday morning for allegedly assaulting a teacher during a disciplinary hearing.

The principal, Sean Keaton, was charged with punching and kicking the school’s teacher union representative during a meeting about whether a special ed teacher used corporal punishment against a student in the school on Adelphi Street.

The Daily News reported that Keaton suddenly became enraged at Robert Segarra, the United Federation of Teachers rep and a kindergarten teacher himself, before launching into the violent episode that culminates Keaton’s rocky tenure at the helm of PS 20, where school enrollment has dropped in the gentrifying neighborhood.

The shamed principal was immediately reassigned to administrative duties elsewhere in the school system and will not be back at the elementary school until a police investigation is complete, said Andrew Jacob, a spokesman for the Department of Education.

Keaton started teaching at PS 20 in the 1990s and became the principal there in 2005. He quickly became a divisive figure with some parents singing his praises and others slamming him as a tyrant — some actually comparing him on Web sites to Adolf Hitler and Zimbabwe’s brutal president Robert Mugabe.

The total student population has shrunk, and only 27 percent of eligible kindergarten students from the neighborhood choose to attend PS 20. Next year, there will be only two kindergarten classes, down from three this year, because of declining enrollment.

Pushed to the brink by the intense criticism, Keaton wrote a letter last month published on a New York Times blog, defending himself (See below - Editor).

“My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain,” the letter said. “I believe the number of supporters far exceeds the number of detractors. Honestly speaking, my ultimate goal is to lead a school that I would enroll my child without hand-picking his teachers.”

Keaton did not return our call.

Keaton’s arrest dominated conversation in the schoolyard on Tuesday morning as parents dropped off their children.

There seemed to be universal disdain for his alleged attack on the kindergarten teacher, but opinion was split on his performance before the scandal broke late Thursday.

“Overall, I’m disgusted at his actions,” said Veronica Jones, who accused Keaton of hypocrisy and was not a fan of him before the violent outburst. “He’s quick to tell the children right from wrong. If this is the example we’re going to set, we’re in a world of trouble.”

Other parents did not believe the police report.

“I thought he was a great guy,” said Zora Jamil, whose son is in kindergarten. “He was stern with [the students], which I find necessary, but I was shocked at the arrest.”

Updated 05:34 pm, May, 28 2009: Story was updated to add comments from parents.

April 20, 2009, 10:13 am
An Open Letter from the P.S. 20 Principal
By Sean Keaton
LINK

Sean Keaton, the principal of P.S. 20, sent this in as a comment yesterday. It’s of sufficient interest that we are running it now as a post. We present it unedited.

Hello Fort Greene Community,

When I accepted the principalship at the Clinton Hill School\PS 20 four years ago, I set out to accomplish five goals.

1. Implement new arts and enrichment programming. Build partnerships with BMA, BAM and BBG.

2. Increase standardized test scores for students in grades 3, 4 and 5.

3. Improve the reputation of the school, because so many local families opted to send their child(ren) to schools in different school districts. For the record this trend started, before I became the principal.

4. Open the school to the community at-large to participate in organized school based activities during the day, at night and on the weekends.

5. Take the school citywide.

Unfortunately, goal number four has been a point of contention for some members of the community. On local blogs I am referred to as Mugabe and Hitler; as in John Mugabe president of Zimbabwe and Adolf Hitler. The only thing I have in common with John Mugabe is that we are both men of color. For the record I have never met or spoken to the man. And, there is no similarity between Adolf Hitler and myself.

My feelings have been bruised and I have been offended and threatened by many people in my school community but I never complain. I believe the number of supporters far exceeds the number of detractors. Honestly speaking my ultimate goal is to lead a school that I would enroll my child without hand-picking his teachers.

During my tenure I have met with many people who shared their desire to change PS 20 into a either a coop, charter, magnet or a private school without tuition fees. Yes, this has been articulated to me! I will work with anyone who wants to work with me on improving what we have in place.

With the support of a very small group of people (staff not included) I have accomplished each of the aforementioned goals, as well as others that make me proud. I wonder what it feels like to receive support in the areas of grantwriting, parent newsletters, real fundraising, enrichment, website design and team building like some of my colleagues in our school districts. These are tangible areas that our school needs support.

The staff and I have worked tirelessly to improve student achievement and rebuild the reputation of the school; it is evident in the work that we do daily. The TIER citywide gifted and talented program at PS 20 is great news for Brooklyn. The staff and I have accomplished something that has never been done in the history of the NYC Department of Education. For this we should receive applause from the community, but instead I am misquoted by Scout and blasted by bobbycue above.

I am available to meet and listen to the community (preferably large groups) about any matter related to PS 20. Dates, times and location are negotiable, but I am available.

Yours truly,

Sean Keaton
Principal
Clinton Hill School\PS 20
225 Adelphi Street
Brooklyn, NY 11205
718-834-6744
718-834-6745

PS Citywide gifted and talented status is not a gift, but the results of four years of hard work.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

The Outrageous Actions of David Jimenez, Brian Bradley, Daniel Albetta and Dennis Hernandez all at the Manhattan Center For Science and Mathematics

I think the Complaint filed by Michael P. Thomas shows outrageous actions taken against him by David Jimenez, Daniel Albetta, the school’s assistant principal of security; Brian Bradley, the assistant principal of special education; and Dennis Hernandez, school Dean. Read below. Mr. Thomas settled.

Thank you, students of MCSM for  contacting me!

Betsy Combier
 betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials

Michael P. Thomas' Amended Complaint

Michael P. Thomas' Complaint:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________X
MICHAEL P. THOMAS,                                                     :
Plaintiff,                                   14-cv-8019 (JMF)
-v-                                                                MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.                          :
_________________________________________X
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
This is the second case brought by Michael P. Thomas, a former public school teacher proceeding pro se, against the administration of the school where he was formerly employed.1 In this case, Thomas alleges principally that administrators violated his First Amendment rights by preventing him from distributing information about his blog to students. Thomas also seeks to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) in its entirety. For the reasons explained below, that motion is largely denied, and Plaintiffs request to amend his Complaint to add a malicious prosecution claim is granted. In the first case, Thomas alleged that the Special Commissioner of Investigations for the New York City School District violated his due process rights by inadequately investigating his claims that the administration had retaliated against him in violation of New York law. The Court dismissed the case on July 10, 2015. (No. 14-CV-8554, Docket No. 21).
Defendants also request a stay of discovery pending the Court’s resolution of the motion to dismiss. (Mem. Law Supp. Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss Am. Compl. (Docket No. 35) (“Defs.’ Mem.”) 13-14). That request is denied as moot, as the Court has not yet even entered a discovery schedule.
Generally, in considering a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts are limited to the facts alleged in the complaint and are required to accept those facts as true. See, e.g., LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009). A court may, however, consider documents attached to the complaint, statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, public records, and documents that the plaintiff either possessed or knew about, and relied upon, in bringing the suit. See, e.g., Kleinman v. Elan Corp., 706 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2013); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (applying rule to district courts). In addition, because a pro se plaintiffs allegations must be construed liberally, it is appropriate for a court to consider factual allegations made in a pro se plaintiffs opposition memorandum, as long as the allegations are consistent with the complaint. See, e.g., Braxton v. Nichols, No. 08-CV-8568 (PGG), 2010 WL 1010001, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010); cf. Gill v. Mooney, 824 F.2d 192,
195 (2d Cir. 1987) (considering a pro se plaintiffs affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss in addition to the complaint). Accordingly, the following facts are taken from the Complaint, exhibits attached thereto, Plaintiffs opposition papers (to the extent they are consistent with the Complaint), and documents of which the Court may take judicial notice.
Plaintiff was employed by the New York City Department of Education as a mathematics teacher at the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics (“MCSM”) from September 1989 through July 2012, when he retired. (Am. Compl. (Docket No. 33) ^ 5). A few months after his retirement, Plaintiff created a blog criticizing the administration of MCSM. (Id. ^ 11). In January 2013, he was distributing business cards with information about the blog to MCSM students, when he was approached by Defendants Daniel Albetta, the school’s assistant principal of security; Brian Bradley, the assistant principal of special education; and Dennis Hernandez, who was performing the duties of the school’s dean of students. (Id. ^ 7-9, 12-13). Although Plaintiff attempted to distance himself from them, Albetta, Bradley, and Hernandez followed him and prevented him from interacting with students. (Id. ^ 16). Plaintiff was then approached by Defendant David Jimenez (together with Albetta, Bradley, and Hernandez, “Defendants”). (Id.
^ 18). Jimenez extended his arm “as if to shake hands,” but then grabbed Plaintiff’s hand, “threw himself to the ground,” and claimed that Plaintiff had assaulted him. (Id. ^ 19). When Plaintiff attempted to walk away, Albetta called 911, and Plaintiff was arrested. (Id. ^ 20-21).
Plaintiff was subsequently charged with assault in the third degree (although the charge was later reduced to attempted assault in the third degree) and harassment in the second degree, and was placed in a holding cell pending arraignment. (Id. ^ 21, 23). After his arraignment, Plaintiff was released on his own recognizance, but the court issued an order of protection prohibiting Plaintiff from having any contact with Jimenez. (Id. ^ 24). Upon the advice of counsel, Plaintiff took down his blog. (Id. ^ 25, 33). Plaintiff went to trial in September 2013. (Id. ^ 27). At trial, Defendants testified that students had reported that a man was handing out flyers near the school and harassing students. (Id. ^ 28). They further testified that they had a duty to ensure the safety of students along a route frequently used by students to get to MCSM, which they called the “safe corridor.” (Id. ^ 29). Plaintiff was found guilty of harassment in the second degree, but acquitted of the assault charge. (Id. ^ 35). As a result of the harassment conviction, the order of protection against Plaintiff was continued — and expanded to prohibit Plaintiff from entering the “safe corridor.” (Id. ^ 30).
Plaintiff filed this action on October 6, 2014, alleging that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by preventing him from informing students about his blog and by filing false charges against him, which led him to remove the blog from the Internet. (Docket No. 1). Although such a claim is not stated explicitly in the Complaint, Plaintiff also believes that Defendants’ actions constituted malicious prosecution. (Docket No. 39). Defendants counter that the Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that they were acting under color of state law and because Plaintiff may not bring claims that imply the invalidity of his harassment conviction. They further argue that the Court should neither consider Plaintiff’s newly raised malicious prosecution claim nor grant him leave to amend the Complaint. The Court will address each argument in turn.
In evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all facts set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See, e.g., Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2008). A claim will survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, however, only if the plaintiff alleges facts sufficient “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A plaintiff must show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” id., and cannot rely on mere “labels or conclusions” to support a claim, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. If the plaintiffs pleadings “have not nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.” Id. at 570. Here, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his Complaint “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, a pro se litigant must still state a plausible claim for relief. See, e.g., Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2013). In other words, the Court’s “‘duty to liberally construe a plaintiffs complaint is not the equivalent of a duty to re-write it.’” Geldzahler v. N.Y. Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting 2 Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.34[1][b], at 12-61).
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges two First Amendment claims against Defendants, one for preventing him from distributing information about his blog to students and one for causing criminal charges to be filed against him, which resulted in the protective order, which, in turn, led him to take down his blog. (Am. Compl. ^ 34-35). Plaintiff would have a hard time maintaining the latter claim, as he voluntarily took the blog down based on the advice of his own criminal counsel and does not allege that he was required to do so by the order of protection. (Id. ^ 24-25). But, as Plaintiff himself acknowledges, the claim suffers from a more fundamental problem: Insofar as it is premised on the order of protection, and the order of protection was continued as a result of his conviction for harassment, the claim depends on the invalidity of his criminal conviction and sentence. (Pl.’s Mem. Law Opp’n Def.’s Mot. To Dismiss Am. Compl. (Docket No. 39) (“Pl.’s Mem.”) 1, 16-17). It follows that Plaintiff cannot pursue the claim unless and until his conviction is vacated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 489-90 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff may not bring an action pursuant to Section 1983 that “necessarily require[s] the plaintiff to prove the unlawfulness of his conviction”); Poventudv. City of N.Y., 750 F.3d 121, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2014) (similar). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted on consent as to that claim.
There is no basis, however, to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated the First Amendment by preventing him from distributing information concerning his blog. Defendants argue that the claim must be dismissed because they were not acting “under color of state law,” as required for them to be held liable under Section 1983. See, e.g., Pitchell v. Callan, 13 F.3d 545, 547 (2d Cir. 1994). More specifically, Defendants argue that when they confronted Plaintiff they were acting as private citizens because they “had no power or authority under state law to prevent Plaintiff from handing out his cards.” (Defs.’ Mem. 6-9). It is well established, however, that where a defendant “uses his state authority to violate the plaintiff’s rights, he may be said to act under color of state law even though he acts contrary to law.” Rodriguez v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., No. 06-CV-13762 (RJS), 2009 WL 3817298, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2009) (citing cases). Thus, to satisfy the state-action requirement, Plaintiff need not allege that Defendants had actual authority to prevent him from handing out business cards to students; he need allege only that Defendants “purport[ed] to act according to official power.” Emanuele v. Town of Greenville, 143 F. Supp. 2d 325, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (emphasis added); see also Pitchell, 13 F.3d at 548 (stating that an off-duty police officer could be found liable if he invoked the “apparent authority” of the police department); Dean v. City of Buffalo, 579 F. Supp. 2d 391, 404 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (“A person may also be found to act under color of law when he acts under pretense of law.”). Construed liberally, the Complaint does just that, as it alleges that Defendants testified at Plaintiff’s trial that they approached him pursuant to their duty as school officials to maintain the safe corridor. (Am. Compl. ^ 29). In other words, the Complaint alleges that Defendants claimed to have authority, by virtue of their positions at MCSM, to prohibit Plaintiff from interacting with students at that location. That is sufficient at this stage.
B. Malicious Prosecution
Next, the Court turns to Plaintiffs request for leave to amend his Complaint to add a claim of malicious prosecution. (Pl.’s Mem. 11-16 & n.2). Defendants’ sole objection is that such an amendment would be futile. (Reply Mem. Law Supp. Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss Am. Compl. (Docket No. 44) (“Defs.’ Reply”) 6-9). To prevail on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) the initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding against plaintiff; (2) termination of the proceeding in plaintiff’s favor; (3) lack of probable cause for commencing the proceeding; and (4) actual malice as a motivation for defendant’s actions.” Manganiello v. City of N.Y., 612 F.3d 149, 171 (2d Cir. 2010). Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the second prong — termination of the proceeding in his favor — because he was convicted of harassment. (Defs.’ Reply 7-9). But Plaintiff was acquitted of assault, and the Second Circuit has recognized that “[a] plaintiff charged with crimes of varying degrees of seriousness, and convicted on the lesser charges, may nonetheless sue for malicious prosecution on the more serious claims that were terminated in his favor.” Green v. Montgomery, 219 F.3d 52, 59-60 (2d Cir. 2000). The question, then, is whether the assault charge was “so closely intertwined with the offense of conviction” — that is, the harassment charge — “that there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the acquittal is sufficiently distinct to support a claim of malicious prosecution.” Fernandez v. City of N.Y., No. 02-CV-8195 (JGK), 2003 WL 21756140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2003). To determine whether two charges are sufficiently distinct, a court must examine each charge separately, keeping in mind that “[c]harges may be sufficiently
Although Plaintiff concedes that the Complaint does not “explicitly” include a malicious prosecution claim (Pl.’s Mem. 11 n.2), he appears to ask the Court to read such a claim into his Complaint on the ground that the facts alleged would support one. It is not clear, however, that the Complaint, as currently drafted, would support a malicious prosecution claim. In any event, in the Court’s view, the better course is to treat Plaintiff’s request as one for leave to amend.
distinct even if they arose out of the same events occurring on the same occasion.” Reid v. City of N.Y. No. 00-CV-5164 (RCC) (JCF), 2004 WL 626228, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2004).
Here, Plaintiff may have difficulty alleging — let alone proving — that the assault charge was sufficiently distinct from the harassment charge to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution. See, e.g., Fernandez, 2003 WL 21756140, at *6-7 (finding that a plaintiff who was acquitted of assault and convicted of harassment had not alleged that the charges were sufficiently distinct to pursue a claim of malicious prosecution). But the Court cannot reach that conclusion as a matter of law, particularly without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint to include any and all relevant facts. Plaintiff could allege, for example, that he was convicted of harassment based on his conduct toward Albetta, Bradley, and Hernandez, while the assault charge was based on his supposed throwing of Jimenez to the ground. Alternatively, Plaintiff could allege facts to support a conclusion that the factfinder at his criminal trial found him guilty of harassing Jimenez (instead of, or in addition to, the other Defendants), but also found that Jimenez had staged the supposed assault. In either case, the allegations might be sufficient to show that Plaintiff received a “termination in his favor” on the assault charge, notwithstanding his conviction for harassment. Cf. Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91, 100 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that a probable cause finding supporting disorderly conduct charges did not preclude the plaintiffs malicious prosecution claim for resisting arrest or assault because, otherwise, “an officer with probable cause as to a lesser offense could tack on more serious, unfounded charges which would support a high bail or a lengthy detention, knowing that the probable cause on the lesser offense would insulate him from liability for malicious prosecution on the other offenses”). In any event, mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court concludes that the more appropriate, and prudent, course is to allow him to amend his Complaint.4
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted on consent as to Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights in causing criminal charges to be filed against him, but is otherwise denied. Further, Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint to add a claim for malicious prosecution. Any such Second Amended Complaint shall be filed within 30 days of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff is reminded that any Second Amended Complaint would replace, not supplement, the current Complaint, and advised that he should include any and all facts that may be relevant to his malicious prosecution claim, as it is unlikely that he would be given an additional opportunity to amend in the event that Defendants move to dismiss on the same ground that they oppose leave to amend here.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 34 and to mail a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.
Date: September 1, 2015
Defendants appear to suggest that allowing Plaintiff to pursue a malicious prosecution claim based on the assault charge would imply the invalidity of his harassment conviction (Defs.’ Reply 9), but that argument borders on frivolous. As noted above, the malicious prosecution claim can go forward only if the acquittal on the assault charge constitutes a termination in Plaintiff’s favor despite his (unchallenged) conviction on the other charge.
More on malicious prosecution and probable cause:


  • No. 10-4955-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2011)

SELINGER V. CITY OF NEW YORK


We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. 
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges. 

APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS:
SCOTT A. KORENBAUM, Esq. (Frederick K. Brewington, Esq., 
on the brief), New York, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES:
ANDREW S. WELLIN, Of Counsel (Larry A. Sonnenshein, Of Counsel, 
on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the

City of New York, New York, New York.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard M. Berman, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on November 8, 2010, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs Paul Selinger and Marsha Selinger appeal an award of summary judgment in favor of defendant Detective William Greene on claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and the dismissal of related state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. We review an award of summary judgment de novo, see Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 101 (2d Cir. 2010), "constru[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, [and] drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all ambiguities in [his] favor," Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597, 603 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We assume familiarity with the underlying facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 

1. Malicious Prosecution
Because Marsha Selinger's claims are derivative of her husband's, we hereafter refer only to Paul Selinger's claims in discussing plaintiffs' appeal. Further, because plaintiffs do not appeal the award of summary judgment in favor of defendant the City of New York, we do not discuss that award further.

Selinger contends that he adduced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on the question of whether Greene lacked probable cause to initiate Selinger's prosecution for insurance fraud. See Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149, 160-61 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution is assessed by reference to elements of related state tort, which, under New York law, requires proof of absence of probable cause). That claim fails for several reasons. First, because Selinger was prosecuted on an indictment, Greene is entitled to a presumption of probable cause, which may be rebutted only "by evidence that the indictment was procured by fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith." Id. at 162 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have failed to introduce evidence of any such misconduct.

Second, even without the benefit of a presumption, there is no genuine issue as to the existence of probable cause to initiate the challenged prosecution. While probable cause requires more than "mere suspicion" of wrongdoing, Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 454 (1957), its focus is on "probabilities," not "hard certainties," Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). It does not equate to a prima facie or preponderance showing. See id. at 235; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419 (1969). Nor does it demand a showing that a good faith belief be "correct or more likely true than false." Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983). It requires only such facts as make wrongdoing probable. See Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139, 157 (2d Cir. 2007). 

Such probability was established as a matter of law in this case from evidence showing that, before referring Selinger to the district attorney's office for prosecution, Greene had adduced evidence that the health clinic with which Selinger was associated had submitted fraudulent insurance claims on behalf of "Igor Gabjilov," an undercover police officer whom Selinger diagnosed with temporomandibular joint ("TMJ") disorder. Those claims sought reimbursements for medical treatments that Gabjilov purportedly received but that, in fact, were never provided. On at least one of these fraudulent claim forms, Paul Selinger's stamped signature appeared on the "signature of provider" line.

Plaintiffs assert that the record would permit a finding that Selinger legitimately diagnosed the undercover officer as suffering from TMJ disorder. But the validity of Selinger's medical diagnosis is irrelevant. As plaintiffs recognize, "[t]he essence of the insurance fraud scheme . . . was fraudulent billing," Le., insurance claims filed for medical treatments that were never performed. Pl.'s Br. 44. On this point, Greene undoubtedly had evidence of probable wrongdoing by Selinger: a fraudulent reimbursement claim bearing Selinger's stamped signature as the provider of services never performed. That document constituted "reasonably trustworthy information as to . . . facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief than an offense has been . . . committed by the person to be arrested." Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d at 161 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In urging otherwise, Selinger observes that Greene did not know whether Selinger actually stamped the form or was otherwise involved in submitting the insurance bills. But Selinger adduced no evidence suggesting that Greene had reason to question Selinger's signature on the claims form. See id. (recognizing that "failure to make a further inquiry when a reasonable person would have done so may be evidence of lack of probable cause" (internal quotation marks omitted)). "[T]he fact that an innocent explanation may be consistent with the facts alleged . . . does not negate probable cause, . . . and an officer's failure to investigate an arrestee's protestations of innocence generally does not vitiate probable cause." Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because Selinger has not submitted evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to lack of probable cause, summary judgment was properly granted to Greene on this claim. 

2. Abuse of Process
Selinger's § 1983 claim for abuse of process requires him to prove that Greene acted with malice, i.e., "with intent to do harm without excuse [or] justification, and . . . in order to obtain a collateral objective that is outside the legitimate ends of the process." Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). On this record, there is no proof that Greene acted with such intent. To the extent Selinger urges an inference of malice from the lack of probable cause, see id. (noting that lack of probable cause permits inference of malice), his claim fails for reasons discussed in the prior section of this order. 
Nor can plaintiffs sustain this claim on the grounds that Greene sought Selinger's arrest and indictment for the collateral purposes of extracting restitution payments and attracting publicity. The record shows that the district attorney's office, not Greene, was responsible for demanding restitution in exchange for Selinger's guilty plea, as well as for the news release issued after Selinger and his co-defendants were indicted. Because those actions cannot be ascribed to Greene, Selinger fails to establish a triable issue of malice. Greene was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the abuse of process claim. 

3. State Law Claims
Because Greene was entitled to summary judgment on Paul Selinger's federal claims, the district court was within its discretion to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. See Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 357 (2d Cir. 2011). 

4. Conclusion
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:


CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Henry Schandel, Principal of MS 158 in Queens NY is Removed From The School

Henry Schandel
It's about time. Read the news about Henry Schandel and wonder why he was principal of MS 158 in Queens for so long. Also shocking was Chancellor Richard Carranza's reaction to the angry parents.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

DOE removes principal from embattled Queens MS 158
The principal of a Queens middle school that became a flashpoint in a citywide debate over classroom safety and discipline last year has been removed, according to the Department of Education.
Former MS 158 Marie Curie principal Henry Schandel will now serve as an assistant principal at another school and be replaced by interim principal Peter McHugh, officials said.
A string of ugly incidents at the Bayside campus during the last academic year — including a vicious lunchroom beating and a classroom sexual assault — culminated in a packed parent meeting where Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza was heckled off the dais.
Both incidents eventually resulted in arrests — but parents of the two victims said the perpetrators were never suspended out of school and that Schandel failed to adequately address their concerns.
Carranza walked off the stage during a raucous January meeting where both teachers and parents complained of deteriorating classroom safety and lax discipline from administrators.
Arguing that suspensions are meted out in a racially disproportionate manner and that they lead to worsened academic outcomes, the DOE has pushed principals to embrace less punitive measures.
But parents at Marie Curie said administrators failed to properly handle severe misconduct last year and that other students were paying the price.
Katty Sterling, whose daughter was assaulted in the school’s cafeteria in a video that went viral, said the attacker remained in class while her child was too scared to return.
The father of another Marie Curie said Schandel never told him that his daughter was being sexually hounded by a student who was eventually arrested for forcibly groping her.
While Schandel became the focus of parental and teacher anger, some sources at the school said systemwide DOE policies were also to blame for the breakdown in safety last year.
Marie Curie, considered one of the better schools in District 26, will name a permanent principal at a later date.
McHugh, a 20-year veteran of the DOE and most recently the Guidance Manager/Climate & Culture Manager at the Queens North Borough Office began his career as a teacher at Richmond Hill High School.
“Mr. McHugh is an invaluable resource in providing care and support for students recovering from trauma — something our young people need now more than ever,” said District 26 Superintendent Danielle Giunta.
“He will provide steady, professional, and engaged leadership to the students, staff, and families of Marie Curie during this transitional period.”
Queens principal to hand out Valentine’s Day lollipops at violence-plagued middle school
Susan Edelman, NY POST, February 8, 2020

Critics — including the mom of the 8th-grader who was punched, kicked, jumped on and pulled by the hair during the beat down — didn’t sugarcoat their dismay, saying the plan sucks.
“What is wrong with this guy? Is he out of his mind?” a stunned Katty Sterling asked The Post.
“Apparently this guy is so desperate to look good in front of the district and parents, he’s doing this crazy show. He’s a clown.”
Sterling recalled that Schandel had downplayed the assault on her daughter before he knew video existed — and allegedly lied to her that the attacker was suspended outside the school.
“I wish he showed some love and compassion the day my daughter was attacked — not a month later,” the furious mom said.
Her daughter, bruised physically and emotionally, has not returned to school since the Jan. 9 assault, and will be getting home instruction starting Tuesday, Sterling said.
The educator’s idea hits a sour note, said the dad of the grope victim.
“It’s ridiculous. This is what they are spending their time on? Lollipops?” asked the dad, who on Jan. 16 tried to address the matter with Carranza at the District 26 meeting at MS 74. The DOE boss refused to hear the dad’s concerns, and walked out amid the din of protesters, there to demand his firing for various reasons

“Is that what is going to help teach these kids discipline? No. It’s not going to do anything other than distract them for five minutes. Come on,” the dad said.
A Marie Curie teacher also blasted the school leader, ripping him as “clueless.”
“Kids being sexually assaulted in the bathroom, fights caught on video in the lunchroom, and he’s handing out lollipops to all students,” the teacher said. “ I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.”
The lollipop directive comes as the city Department of Education admits it has failed to fully implement a parental bullying complaint system, as it promised to do under a class-action settlement two years ago.
DOE spokeswoman Miranda Barbot praised Schandel.
“When school leaders take the time to celebrate their students and invite staff to join in the effort to create a positive school environment, it should be encouraged not dismissed, and we support gestures like this across our schools,” she said.
Additional reporting by Selim Algar

TRAUMATIZED BY BEATING FOLLOWED BY CHEERS: Katty Sterling (left), the mother of the 13-year-old girl who was assaulted in the cafeteria by a 14-year-old former friend, said that beyond the beating she suffered she felt ‘betrayed by the students’ who cheered when her attacker raised her hands above her head in triumph. Leonard Davidman (right), the president of the District Council 37 local that represents Psychologists and the senior Psychologist at Metropolitan Hospital Center, said those students were swept up in ‘mob behavior [in which] people lose their individuality. They join in, so they don’t feel as guilty.’

School Bully Indulged At Her Victim's Expense
Chief-Leader, 

  •  
  •  Updated 

  • The most shocking moment in a 39-second video of the Jan. 9 beat-down by a 14-year-old girl at MS 158 Marie Curie in Bayside, Queens of a 13-year-old did not involve the punches and kicks delivered by the older girl as her target tried to cover up—an assault briefly interrupted by a Teacher who took hold of the aggressor, only to have her emerge seconds later jumping off a table to continue the attack.
    Rather, the incident entered a new dimension when the 14-year-old, having apparently inflicted enough damage to exhaust her rage, stood up on a table, raised her hands above her head like she’d just won the heavyweight title, and cheers erupted from the students who had been watching.
    There was a past history between the two girls. According to Katty Sterling, the girl’s mother, they had once been friends, and she had driven them to the mall and the movies.
    Things changed, she said in a Feb. 4 phone interview, when her daughter was placed in the same class as the other girl’s boyfriend.
    ‘Wasn’t Flirting,’ But That Didn’t Matter
    “My daughter likes to talk to everybody—she has a lot of friends,” Ms. Sterling said. “But that doesn’t mean she was flirting with him.”
    But, she said, the other girl became jealous, and last spring attacked her in the school locker room. “She threw her on the floor, kicked her in the head, scratched her in the face,” she said. But when Ms. Sterling came to MS 158 the following day, she said Principal Henry Schandel and Assistant Principal Robert LoCastro downplayed the incident.
    A day later, she said, the female student during a dispute with two boys brandished a knife, although she didn’t use it, but still no disciplinary action was taken against her.
    “Apparently the school is being run by the students and Mr. Schandel is just covering things up,” Ms. Sterling asserted.
    The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, which represents both Principal Schandel and AP LoCastro, did not respond to an email detailing those and other accusations made against them by Ms. Sterling.
    It wasn’t clear why the students who witnessed the cafeteria rampage last month cheered the perpetrator, who initiated it by charging the younger girl and whaling away. Until then, there were two discrete sounds on the 39-second video: students shrieking and an adult woman moaning repeatedly, “Oh my God” at the disturbing sight, which seemed the only appropriate reaction to what was occurring.
    Dr. Leonard Davidman, the president of Psychologists Local 1189 of District Council 37 who is also the senior Psychologist at Metropolitan Hospital Center, said in a Feb. 4 phone interview that the fight was not unlike some he had witnessed among young patients at the hospital, but added, “I deal with kids who murder people.”
    As to the reaction by the student bystanders as if the victor in the one-sided confrontation had done something thrilling, he said, “In mob behavior, people lose their individuality. They join in, so they don’t feel as guilty. That’s a social-psychology phenomenon.”
    Dr. Davidman added about the video, which he viewed several times, “What struck me was that no kids intervened and went in to stop the fight. In the old days, some kids would have tried to break it up. And they’re not restrained by rules from breaking in” the way Teachers might be.
    ‘Afraid to Intervene’
    “Teachers are afraid to intervene,” he continued. It’s not because they worry that a student in a frenzy might injure them, although that’s a possibility. “They’re afraid of getting fired,” he said, because of the climate that has seeped into the school system since Mayor de Blasio took office and a priority was placed on reducing suspensions that would at least temporarily remove misbehaving students from their schools.
    “Principals say that they have no discretion: ‘We’re told to step back to lower the suspension rate,’“ Dr. Davidman said.
    Parents at MS 158, as well as some Teachers, have faulted Principal Schandel for failing to impose discipline, first in a harassment case that degenerated into a sexual assault—and even then he didn’t suspend the accused boy until after he’d been arrested—and then following the cafeteria beat-down.
    “You can’t just blame the Principal,” Dr. Davidman said. “You can’t just blame [Schools Chancellor Richard} Carranza,” who further stoked outrage among parents by walking out of a Jan. 16 Community Education Council forum when questioned about the two incidents, and subsequently acted as if he were the aggrieved party, rather than the parents of the two students who had confronted him.
    Teamsters Local 237 President Greg Floyd, who represents School Safety Agents, has been harshly critical of the scaling back of suspensions and other forms of discipline that began while Carmen Fariña was still Chancellor, and he contended that the greatest fault lay with Mayor de Blasio.
    “The lax disciplinary procedures will continue because the children have figured out that there are no consequences because of the ‘restorative justice’ and the Mayor’s no-suspension policy,” he said in a phone interview, referring to the technique in which, rather than punishing the aggressor, ways are sought to have that person make amends to the victim. In situations that previously would have resulted in suspensions, Mr. Floyd continued, “Children should be made to bring their parents to school [to learn of their alleged conduct] before they’re let back in.”
    An Emotional Meltdown
    Mr. Carranza has taken most of the heat for the insensitive reaction that began with his bolting the Jan. 16 forum and later complaining that he had been “set up” by a group that has called for his firing. He concluded a diatribe against his critics at an unrelated Jan. 28 press conference in which he spoke of “outside agitators” with a racist agenda with a ramble about how “every city I’ve worked in and lived in, there is a Mexican restaurant, I have a mariachi, traje and a guitar, I will not starve. So bring it on.”
    He acted as if he were the one who had been pummeled and traumatized to the cheers of a mob. It scored high on a scale for self-pity, but didn’t register a scintilla for empathy. The following day, he belatedly issued an apology, saying, “as a parent myself, I can only imagine the pain that parents are feeling when their children have been hurt.”
    It took him long enough, and apparently came with some prodding by officials within the administration who had become aware of how close he veered to talking himself out of a job. A change.org petition circulated calling on the Mayor to fire Mr. Carranza, gathering more than 900 signatures in the first four days it was up.
    Ms. Sterling said that she had confronted the Chancellor at the Jan. 16 forum because previous attempts to speak to him privately had been unsuccessful. Besides wanting Mr. Schandel to be fired, she said, “And this Carranza who is claiming to be a professional isn’t acting like one.”
    The day after the cafeteria attack, she said that when she came to the school, the Principal denied having a copy of the video. She said that when she told him, “You don’t know how to take care of your students,” he replied, “What do you want me to tell you? These things are out of my hands.”
    “I told him,” she said, “ ‘I want this girl to be removed from school.’ He told me, ‘That’s not going to happen,’” and suggested she transfer her daughter to another school.
    One source at MS 158, speaking conditioned on anonymity, described the attacker as a chronic bully who was “unrepentant and unremorseful” about the beating she administered.
    Perverting Justice
    Ms. Sterling’s daughter, an eighth-grader who is due to graduate in June, has not returned to the school since the incident. The attitude her mother said was communicated to her in their Jan. 10 conversation in large measure was consistent with that emphasis on reducing suspensions, no matter how egregious the behavior involved and how often those accused have stepped way beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior. When a school’s default answer to the victim is to transfer out, the justice it represents is perverted rather than restorative, a product of a twisted ideology that is immune to both the facts and basic decency.
    After several weeks in which Ms. Sterling went to MS 158, which is not far from her home in Bayside, to get her daughter’s homework assignments, the school—perhaps embarrassed by the negative coverage and a wave of outrage that has begun lapping at the feet of the Mayor as well as Mr. Carranza, is finally sending an instructor to provide home lessons to the 13-year-old.
    Ms. Sterling said she has retained a lawyer, despite what she claimed were pleas by some school officials not to take that route, and plans to sue. “They’ve been offering me other schools,” she said. “They’re trying to play with my brain.”
    She was emphatic that her daughter would not return to the school until Principal Schandel arrived there was well-regarded. Asked how the 13-year-old was dealing with the trauma of the attack and the failure to intervene by anyone in the cafeteria besides the Teacher who briefly diverted her assailant, Ms. Sterling said, “My daughter is very distressed. She feels betrayed by the schoolteachers and the students. She’s afraid she’s going to be attacked again.
    “And,” the mother continued, “she doesn’t want to be around the students who were celebrating.”