Robert K Druger v. Syracuse

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 02/25/2020 01:07 PM INDEX NO.
002005/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
-------------- ------ ¬x
ROBERT K. DRUGER,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
v.
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF SUMMONS

TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY,
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------- x
To the above-named Defendant:
YOUR ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon plaintiff's attorneys an
answer to the complaint in this action within twenty days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service, or within thirty days after service is complete if this summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State of New York. In case of your failure to answer,
judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded the complaint.
Dated: February 25, 2020

New York, New York
Kathleen Thomas, Esq.
kat@tlepe.law
THOMAS LABARBERA COUNSELORS AT LAW
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Ph: (917) 209-6446
DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS:
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD
OF EDUCATION 725 Harrison Street, Syracuse City, in the County of Onondaga, New York
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY & BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
900 South Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13244
1 of 24
FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 02/25/2020 01:07 PM INDEX NO. 002005/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTYOFONONDAGA
------------------------- ---------------x
ROBERT K. DRUGER,
Index No.:
Plaintiff,
v.
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF COMPLAINT

TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF ROBERT K. DRUGER, by and through his attorneys, Greene Broillet & Wheeler,
LLP and Thomas LaBarbera Counselors at Law, P.C. for his Coniplaint in this matter against
DEFENDANTS SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE
UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION hereby allege as follows:
NATURE OF CLAIM
1. This case is brought pursuant to New York's Child Victims Act ("CVA") (CPLR §
214-g).
2. Pursuant to the CVA, Plaintiff timely brings his causes of action within the one year
window"
"retroactive revival which removes the previously applicable statute of limitations.
3. Pursuant to the Child Victims Act ("CVA"), Defendants are liable for the
intentional and negligent acts and omissions which contributed to Plaintiff being a victim of child
sexual abuse,and resulted in serious psychological and emotional harms suffered by Plaintiff.
4. The CVA § 3 states:
2 of 24
"... every civil claim or cause of action brought against any party alleging
intentional or negligent acts or omissions by a person for physical, psychological, or
other injury or condition suffered as a result of conduct which would constitute a sexual
offense as defined in article one hundred thirty of the penal law committed against a child
less than eighteen years of age... which conduct was committed against a child less than
eighteen years of age, which is barred as of the effective date of this section because the
applicable period of limitation has expired... is hereby revived, and action thereon may
be commenced not earlier than six months after, and not later than one year and six
section."
months after the effective date of this
5. As defmed by the CVA, Plaintiff was less than eighteen years of age at the times
of the criminal sexual assaults and sexual abuse alleged herein.
6. Plaintiff may bring the causes of action against Defendants in this matter pursuant
to the CVA statute of limitations set forth in the CVA § 3.
7. Upon information and belief, that this action falls within one or more of the
exceptions enunciated in Section 1602 of the New York CPLR.
Jurisdiction and Venue
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to CPLR § 301
and § 302, in that the Defendants transact business in the State of New York and committed tortious
acts within the State of New York.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount of damages Plaintiff
seeks exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.
10. Venue for this action is proper in the County of Onondaga pursuant to CPLR § 503,
in that the Defendants reside in this County.
The Parties
11. Plaintiff ROBERT K. DRUGER is a resident of Onondaga County in the State of
New York.
3 of 24
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Syracuse University is a private
educational university doing business and employing individuals in the City of Syracuse, County
of Onondaga, and State of New York.
13. Defendant Syracuse University's principal place of business is located at 900
South Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13244.
14. At all times relevant, and upon information and belief, Defendant Board of
Trustees of Syracuse University by Charter, Bylaws and related governing documents, was and
is, the governing body of Defendant Syracuse University.
15. Defendant Board of Trustees of Syracuse University maintains its principal place
of business at 900 S. Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13244.
16. At all times relevant, and upon information and belief, Defendant Board of
Trustees of Syracuse University, was and is, empowered to oversee all faculty and senior
administrative appointments, create departments, make rules, codes of conduct, policies, and
regulations that govern Defendant Syracuse University.
17. Hereinafter, Defendant Syracuse University and Defendant Board of Trustees of
Syracuse University will be referred to collectively as "Defendant Syracuse University".
18. At all times relevant, and upon information and belief, Defendant Syracuse City
School District is an independent corporate body organized under the laws of the State of New
York with its principle place of business located at 725 Harrison Street, Syracuse City, in the
County of Onondaga, New York.
19. At all times relevant, and upon information and belief, Defendant Syracuse City
School District Board of Education is an independent corporate body organized under the laws
4 of 24
of the State of New York with its principle place of business located at 725 Harrison Street,
Syracuse City, in the County of Onondaga, New York.
20. At all times relevant, and pursuant to Education Law §§ 2551-2552, Defendant
Syracuse City School District Board of Education, was and is, a corporate body vested with the
government, management, care and control of Defendant Syracuse City School District.
21. Hereinafter, Defendant Syracuse City School District Board of Education and
Defendant Syracuse City School District will be referred to collectively as "Defendant School
District".
22. At all times relevant, and upon information and belief, Defendant School District
had exclusive control and jurisdiction over Nottingham High School located at 3100 East
Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY 13224.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in the preceding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
24. Upon information and belief, the facts and background currently known to the
Plaintiff are as follows:
a. Sexual Abuse Perpetrated on the Syracuse University Campus
25. In 1976, Conrad Montgomery Avondale Mainwaring (hereinafter "Mainwaring"),
competed in the Summer Olympics representing the country of Antigua and Barbuda in track
events.
26. In the mid to late 1970's, Mainwaring was hired and employed to work at Camp
Greylock located in Becket, Massachusetts to counsel and coach young minor male athletes
attending the summer camps at the Camp Greylock facilities.
5 of 24
27. Beginning in approximately 1980, Mainwaring was admitted as a student and
employed by Defendant Syracuse University.
28. From 1980 - was under work or

approximately 1986, Mainwaring hired, contract,
otherwise employed by Defendant Syracuse University. Mainwaring worked in various
capacities for Defendant Syracuse University including but not limited to, residential advisor.
29. From 1980 - Defendant Syracuse held out

approximately 1986, University
Mainwaring as an actual and/or de facto athletic coach or assistant coach providing counseling,
coaching and advise to student athletes, including allowing him to invite and coach minor high
school students on the Defendant Syracuse University campus.
30. During this time, Mainwaring was pursuing a master's and doctorate degree from
Defendant Syracuse University.
31. From 1980 - lived in student

approximately 1986, Mainwaring housing owned,
operated, controlled and located on Syracuse University campus. In particular, Mainwaring lived
for some time at the Brewster Boland dormitory of Syracuse University where he was also
employed as the resident advisor.
32. Prior to Mainwaring's employment contract and residential stay with Defendant
Syracuse University, Defendant did not properly vet, screen, research or take any appropriate
actions to ensure that Mainwaring was qualified to work in the capacity for which he was hired.
33. During this time, Defendant Syracuse University gave Mainwaring full,
unfettered and unsupervised access to Syracuse facilities throughout the campus to meet with
underage male high school students as well as young male college students.
34. During his employment and residential stay at the Syracuse University campus,
Defendant Syracuse University authorized, permitted, and allowed Mainwaring to have young
6 of 24
minor boys as well as young male college students to stay with him overnight and meet with
him privately in his dormitory room. As a result, numerous underage high school boys and
young male college students came to Mainwaring's dormitory and stayed from several hours to
overnight with Mainwaring.
35. As a result of the above-mentioned unfettered and unsupervised access,
Mainwaring, was able to groom, sexually prey upon, sexually abuse and sexually assault Plaintiff
and numerous other minor high school boys and young male college students.
36. Starting in approximately 1980, Mainwaring was able to use his Brewster Boland
"physiotherapy"
dormitory room to meet with Plaintiff under the guise of and mental training
sessions. In actuality, Mainwaring sexually abused, molested and sexually assaulted Plaintiff on
multiple occasions, including rubbing, fondling, and masturbating Plaintiff to the point of
ejaculation and hyperventilation. This continued from the time Plaintiff was 17 until he
eventually graduated from Syracuse University.
37. Mainwaring's sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff continued throughout
Mainwaring's employment and residence with Defendant Syracuse University, and Plaintiff's
eventual enrollment at Syracuse University.
38. Throughout Mainwaring's employment at Syracuse University, and prior to the
sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff, Defendant Syracuse University received credible
reports of sexual abuse perpetrated by Mainwaring.
39. Despite these credible reports, Defendant Syracuse University knowingly and
willfully failed to report or conduct proper investigations into the reports of Mainwaring's
perpetration and Mainwaring was permitted to continue abusing students in his Syracuse
dormitory.
7 of 24
40. Throughout Mainwaring's employment at Syracuse University, and prior to the
sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff, Defendant Syracuse University had actual and
constructive notice that Mainwaring was sexually abusing and sexually assaulting minor
students.
flags"
41. Despite warnings, notice, and "red that Mainwaring was perpetrating
underage male students, Defendant Syracuse University continued to allow Mainwaring
unfettered access to isolated one-on-one private meetings with underage male students resulting
in child sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff.
b. Sexual Abuse Perpetrated on the Nottingham High School Campus
42. Upon information and belief, in or around 1980, Defendant School District hired,
contracted, or otherwise employed Mainwaring as a school counselor and advisor to high school
students at Nottingham High School 3100 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY.
43. Defendant School District provided Mainwaring with a private office space at
Nottingham High School, that could be locked from the inside, and where minor students were
alone and isolated with Mainwaring for significant periods of time.
44. During this time, Nottingham High School guidance department authorized and
sessions"
gave permission to Mainwaring to provide private "counseling to minor high schoolers
in this private office.
45. Throughout the time of his employment as a counselor at Nottingham High
School, Mainwaring was not properly certified and/or licensed to act as a counselor, guidance
counselor, social worker or any other capacity in the guidance department, providing counseling
and/or social/emotional development support for young high school students.
8 of 24
46. Prior to his employment at Nottingbam High School, Mainwaring was not
properly screened or vetted by any Defendant School District official, employee or agent to
ensure that Mainwaring held the proper and adequate licensing and certification to work in the
field of school counseling.
47. Prior to his employment at Nottingham High School, Defendant School District
did not properly investigate, research, or inquire into Mainwaring's fitness and eligibility to work
with and advise vulnerable underage youth.
48. While Mainwaring was employed and held an office at Nottingham High School,
Mainwaring meet with several minor high school boys privately in his office, with the door
closed, during and after school hours with the full knowledge, permission and authorization of
Defendant School District.
49. Defendant School District, expressly and impliedly represented to Plaintiff, other
students, and parents of students that Mainwaring was a safe and qualified counselor, and
advisor.
50. During this time, Mainwaring arranged with Defendant School District's officials
and/or employees to meet with Plaintiff, a minor high school student at the time, on several
occasions privately in his Nottingham office.
51. During these private meetings in the Nottingham office, Mainwaring began
grooming and sexually preying upon Plaintiff. Because Defendant School District gave
Mainwaring authorization to act on the school's behalf as a school counselor, advisor and
support system for high school students, Mainwaring was able to use his position to gain the trust
of Plaintiff and sexually abuse and sexually assault him under the guise of counseling sessions.
9 of 24
52. Throughout Mainwaring's employment, and while he held an office at
Nottingham, Mainwaring sexually abused, sexually assaulted, and perpetrated egregious sexual
misconduct against minor high schoolers, including Plaintiff, a minor at the time.
53. Throughout Mainwaring's employment with Defendant School District, and prior
to the sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff, Defendant had actual and constructive notice
that Mainwaring was sexually abusing and sexually assaulting minor students on the Nottingham
High School campus.
flags"
54. Despite warnings, notice, and "red that Mainwaring was perpetrating
underage male students, Defendant School District continued to allow Mainwaring unfettered
access to isolated one-on-one private meetings with underage male students resulting in child
sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff and others.
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE,
RECKLESSNESS, AND FAILURE TO EXERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF
CARE
contained in the proceeding and subsequent paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
56. Defendant Syracuse University had actual and/or constructive notice of material
facts regarding Mainwaring's propensity to commit sexual abuse against minors.
57. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, its agents employees, and/or
contractors had a duty to Plaintiff and similarly situated students to use the same degree of care
as a reasonably prudent entity would use to provide a safe and secure place to receive athletic
training, coaching and counseling free from foreseeable harms.
58. Defendant Syracuse University, its agents, employees, and/or contractors owed a
duty of care to Plaintiff to supervise, control, regulate, monitor, and oversee school activities, as
10 of 24
well as the students and employees, staff, and/or coaches while on the Syracuse University
campus.
59. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, its agents and/or employees,
failed to supervise and protect Plaintiff from foresseable harms while on the Syracuse Campus.
Defendant Syracuse University, its agents and/or employees negligent, carelessly, and recklessly
failed to supervise its students and its faculty, staff, and coaches, including Mainwaring, such
that minor boys and other young male Syracuse students were totally unsupervised and alone
with Mainwaring for a sufficient time for the events alleged in this Complaint to occur.
60. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, its agents and/or
employees, breached its duty owed to Plaintiff to provide reasonable care and ensure a safe and
suitable learning and athletic training environment, including, but is not limited to, the
following:
a. Defendant Syracuse University failed to institute and/or implement and execute
proper policies and procedures to ensure the safety of minors lawfully present on the
Syracuse University campus;
b. Defendant Syracuse University failed to institute and/or implement and execute
proper policies and security measures that would have prevented Mainwaring from
freely engaging in insolated, one-on-one interactions with minors that resulted in
foreseeable child sexual abuse;
c. Defendant Syracuse University failed to properly notify, train, and otherwise educate
students and employees concerning the impropriety of sexual and non-sexual
touching, sexual relations with students; and proper identification and intervention of
foreseeable sexual abuse occurrences;
10
11 of 24
d. Defendant Syracuse University failed to create and/or follow a safety protocol and
any corresponding and related rules, regulations, policies, practices, and procedures
that would have discovered, prevented, and/or intervened the causes of action that
resulted in Plaintiff's injuries;
e. Defendant Syracuse University failed to properly investigate reports of sexual
misconduct perpetrated by Mainwaring;
f. Defendant Syracuse University failed to report and notify the proper authorities upon
discovery and notification of Mainwaring's sexual abuse;
61. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, their agents and/or
employees, had a duty to reasonably guard against and/or intervene to stop the foreseeable harms
that resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.
62. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, their agents, servants and/or
employees, had an opportunity to intervene and prevent the sexual abuse perpetrated against
Plaintiff and failed to do so.
63. Defendant Syracuse University, their agents, servants and/or employees, failed to
discover, intervene, and come to the aide or rescue of Plaintiff, after placing him in an
inadequately supervised and unsafe environment, in which it was reasonably foreseeable and
known that criminal sexual misconduct and sexual abuse could have occurred.
64. Defendant Syracuse University its agents and/or employees, failed to properly
observe, supervise, and monitor areas where it was known and foreseeable that students could be
victims of inappropriate touch, sexual misconduct, sexual assault and abuse, and grooming
students.
11
12 of 24
65. Defendant Syracuse University its agents and/or employees, knew that
Mainwaring was inappropriately touching minors on the campus as they personally witnessed it.
However, after credible reports were made regarding Mainwaring's conduct Defendant Syracuse
University, its agents and/or employees, did nothing to investigate or prevent further malfeasance
by Mainwaring, demonstrating their conscious and reckless disregard for the safety of minors
and students on their campus and ratifying Mainwaring's conduct.
66. Plaintiff is not the only victim of Mainwaring's sexual abuse on Syracuse
Campus. At least 6 others are known to have been molested by Mainwaring on Syracuse
Campus, and it is believed that many more were abused but have yet to come forward.
67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Syracuse, its agents and/or
employees'
negligence, gross negligence, negligent supervision, and careless and reckless
conduct, Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the future pain and suffering.
68. Plaintiff sustained said injuries by reason of carelessness, recklessness, breach of
duties, and negligence of Defendants, its agents and/or employees, all without any negligence on
the part of Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
NEGLIGENT RETENTION, AND NEGLIGENT TRAINING
70. Prior to sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff as described herein, Defendant
Syracuse University, their agents and/or employees, knew or should have known of
Mainwaring's propensity for child sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff.
12
13 of 24
71. Defendant Syracuse University, their agents and/or employees, had a duty to
investigate Mainwaring's background, education, references, and training status prior to hiring
him and allowing him unfettered access to isolated one-on-one interactions with young males.
72. At no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendant Syracuse University
have in place a system or procedure to reasonably investigate, supervise and monitor employees,
including Mainwaring, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation and
abuse of children, nor did they implement a system or procedure to oversee or monitor conduct
toward minors, students and others on Defendant Syracuse University campus.
73. At all relevant times, Defendant Syracuse University, their agents and/or
employees, knowingly, negligently, recklessly and carelessly placed Mainwaring in a position to
cause foreseeable harm, which would not have occurred had Defendant Syracuse University's
taken reasonable care in the decisions respecting the hiring and retention of Mainwaring.
failed to properly investigate and take appropriate measures to evaluate and supervise
Mainwaring.
75. Prior to hiring Mainwaring, Defendant Syracuse University, its agents and/or
employees, failed to properly investigate, check reference, and take other appropriate measures
to ensure that Mainwaring was properly qualified, licensed, and trained to work with children
and young athletes.
knowingly, negligently, recklessly and carelessly authorized and permitted Mainwaring to work
as a residential advisor, without adequate supervision, monitoring and accountability.
13
14 of 24
knowingly, negligently, recklessly and carelessly authorized and permitted Mainwaring to reside
at the University, as a condition of his employment status, without adequate supervision,
monitoring and accountability.
employees, had a duty to supervise, monitor, and inspect the University campus, in particular the
residential areas where it was reasonably foreseeable that isolated one-on-one interactions
between adult employees/residents and minor students would result in predatory sexual abuse
against Plaintiff and similar situated minors.
employees, failed to properly observe, supervise, inspect and monitor the conduct, duties and
tasks being carried out by its employees and adult residents where it was known and foreseeable
that high school minor youth could be victims of inappropriate touch, sexual misconduct, and
sexual assault and abuse.
80. Defendant Syracuse University its agents and/or employees, knew that
Mainwaring was inappropriately touching minors on the campus as they personally witnessed it.
However, after credible reports were made regarding Mainwaring's conduct Defendant Syracuse
University, its agents and/or employees, did nothing to investigate or prevent further malfeasance
by Mainwaring, demonstrating their conscious and reckless disregard for the safety of minors
and students on their campus and ratifying Mainwaring's conduct.
81. Plaintiff is not the only victim of Mainwaring's sexual abuse on Syracuse
Campus. At least 6 others are known to have been molested by Mainwaring on Syracuse
Campus, and it is believed that many more were abused but have yet to come forward.
14
15 of 24
82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Syracuse University, its agents
employees'
and/or negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent
training, Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the future pain and suffering,
duties, and negligence of Defendant Syracuse University, its and/or employees, all without any
negligence on the part of Plaintiff.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT

SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS.
AND FAILURE TO EXERCISE A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE,
School District, its agents and/or employees, knew or should have known of Mainwaring's
propensity for the sexual misconduct perpetrated against Plaintiff.
86. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents employees, and/or
contractors had a duty to Plaintiff and similarly situated students to use the same degree of care
as a reasonably prudent parent would use to provide a safe and secure school environment free
from foreseeable harms.
87. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents and/or
employees, negligently, recklessly, and carelessly breached its duty owed to Plaintiff to provide
reasonable care and ensure a safe and suitable learning environment, including, but is not limited
to, the following:
15
16 of 24
a. Defendant School District failed to institute and/or implement and execute
proper policies and procedures to ensure the safety of its minor students in its
care, custody, and control;
b. Defendant School District failed to institute and/or implement and execute
proper policies and security measures that would have prevented Mainwaring
from freely engaging in insolated, one-on-one interactions with minors that
resulted in foreseeable sexual abuse occurrences;
c. Defendant School District failed to properly notify, train, and otherwise
educate students and employees coñcerñing the impropriety of sexual and
non-sexual touching, sexual relations with students; and proper identification
and intervention of foreseeable sexual abuse occurrences;
d. Defendant School District failed to create and/or follow a safety protocol and
any corresponding and related rules, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures that would have discovered, prevented, and/or intervened the
causes of action that resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.
e. Defendant School District failed to properly investigate reports of misconduct
perpetrated by Mainwaring
f. Defendant School District failed to report and notify the proper authorities
upon discovery and notification of Mainwaring's sexual abuse.
88. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees had a duty and
opportunity to intervene and prevent the sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff and failed to
do so.
16
17 of 24
89. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, failed to discover,
intervene, and come to the aide or rescue of Plaintiff, after placing him in an inadequately
supervised and unsafe environment, in which it was reasonably foreseeable and known that
criminal sexual misconduct and sexual abuse could occurred.
90. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees failed to properly observe,
supervise, and monitor areas where it was known and foreseeable that students could be victims
of inappropriate touch, sexual misconduct, sexual assault and abuse, grooming students, and
inappropriate relations.
91. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, were negligent by failing
to provide sufficient, competent and qualified teachers, coaches, instructors, counselors, trainers
and school personnel for the care and supervision of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
students; in failing to enact, adopt and enforce a program intended to create a youth counseling
and training environment that is free from inappropriate touch, sexual misconduct, sexual assault
and abuse, and grooming students.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant School District, its agents and/or
employees'
negligence, gross negligence, negligent supervision, and careless and reckless
conduct, Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the future pain and suffering,
duties, and negligence of Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, all without any
A.S AND FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT

SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING. NEGLIGENT RETENTION, AND
NEGLIGENT TRAINING, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
17
18 of 24
94. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and allegation

every
School District, its agents and/or employees, knew or should have known of Mainwaring's
propensity for the sexual misconduct perpetrated against Plaintiff.
96. Pursuant to 8 NY-CRR 80-2.31, anyone working as a school counselor or
guidance counselor in a New York State school is required to obtain the appropriate and
adequate certification, licensure, and training prior to employment.
97. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, had a duty to investigate
Mainwaring's background, education, references, certification, and licensure status prior to
hiring Mainwairing to work as an actual or de facto counselor at their school.
98. Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, had a duty to investigate
Mainwaring's background, education, references, certification, and licensure because of the
nature of the work as a counselor to minor students, which gave Mainwaring access to and
ability to interact in one-on-one counseling sessions with vulnerable youth.
99. Defendant School District breached its duty as it failed to do any investigation
into Mainwaring.
100. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees,
knowingly, negligently, recklessly and carelessly placed Mainwaring in a position to cause
foreseeable harm, which would not have occurred had Defendant School District taken
reasonable care in the decisions respecting the hiring and retention of Mainwaring, and allowing
Mainwaring to have an office at Nottingham High School.
1
At the time of the alleged causes of action, the counselor certification requirements were governed by 8 NY-CRR
80-3.
18
19 of 24
failed to properly investigate and take appropriate measures to evaluate Mainwaring's
employment and fitness when he was hired and retained, or otherwise allowed to work with
minor high school boys.
failed to properly investigate and take appropriate measures to ensure that Mainwaring was
properly qualified, licensed, trained and certified to act as a counselor for minor students.
knowingly, negligently, recklessly and carelessly authorized and permitted Mainwaring to work
as a counselor/guidance counselor, without adequate supervision, monitoring and accountability.
Defendant School District did not supervise any of Mainwaring's activities.
104. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, had
a duty to supervise, monitor, and inspect the counseling department, in particular the use of
Mainwaring's private office, where it was reasonably foreseeable that isolated one-on-one
interactions between uncertified and unqualified adult, and minor students would result in
predatory sexual abuse against Plaintiff and similar situated minors.
105. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents and/or
employees, failed to properly observe, supervise, inspect and monitor the conduct, duties and
tasks being carried out by its employees where it was known and foreseeable that high school
minor youth could be victims of inappropriate touch, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault and
abuse.
19
20 of 24
106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant School District, its agents and/or
employees'
negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligent training,
Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the future pain and suffering.
duties, and negligence of Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, all without any
AS AND FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST DEFENDANT

SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR BREACH OF MANDATORY AND UNQUALIFIED DUTY
TO SUPERVISE
109. At all relevant times, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, and
pursuant to N.Y. Education L. § 2554, Defendant School District had a mandatory and unqualified
duty to adequately and properly supervise students in their care, custody and control.
110. At all times relevant, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees,
willingly and knowingly undertook a special duty of care, custody and control over Plaintiff
while Plaintiff was a full-time student at the Nottingham High School.
111. At all times relevant, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees,
deprived Plaintiff of the protection of his parents or guardians while Plaintiff was a full time
student at Defendant's school in its physical custody.
112. Therefore, Defendant School District, its agents and/or employees, had a
nondelegable and special duty to protect Plaintiff from the foreseeable harms of the sexual abuse
and assaults by Mainwaring at the Nottingham High School, and to act as a reasonably prudent
parent to Plaintiff while Plaintiff was attending the Nottingham High School under Defendant
School District's full time care, custody and control.
20
21 of 24
113. Defendant School District and its agents and/or employees, knowingly, willfully,
recklessly, and with gross negligence breached its duty of care to protect Plaintiff against the
harms and injuries caused by child sexual abuse.
114. Defendant School District and its agents and/or employees, knowingly, willfully,
recklessly, and with gross negligence breached its duty of care by failing to protect and promote
Plaintiff's right to be free from all forms of sexual abuse.
115. Defendant School District and its agents and/or employees knowingly, willfully,
and recklessly breached its duty of care by completely failing to supervise Plaintiff and allow
him to be in a room alone with the door closed with Mainwaring and allowing Plaintiff to be
sexually abused on its campus by one of its employees.
116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant School District and its agents
employees'
and/or breach of duties, Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the future
pain and suffering.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTSi

FOR ABSOLUTE LIABILITY AND/OR NEGLIGENCE PER SE
118. Pursuant to Child Protective Service Act of 1973, N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 411 et
seq., (hereinafter "Child Protective Services Act") Defendants, their agents and/or employees
had a statutory duty to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse to the appropriate authorities.
119. At all times relevant and pursuant to § 413 of the Child Protective Service Act of
1973, N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 411 et seq., (hereinafter "Child Protective Services Act"),
reporters"
Defendants were "mandatory required to report or cause a report to be made when
they had reasonable suspensions of child sexual abuse.
21
22 of 24
120. In violation of the Child Protective Services Act, Defendants failed in their
statutory duty to report any and all reasonable suspensions of child sexual abuse perpetrated by
Mainwaring.
121. Pursuant to § 420 of the Child Protective Services Act, by knowingly and
willfully failing to report reasonable suspensions of child sexual abuse perpetrated by
failure"
Mainwaring, Defendants are "civilly liable for the damages proximately caused by such
(N.Y.Soc. Serv. Law § 420).
122. Plaintiff was a class member for which this statue is designed to protect from
child abuse.
123. Defendants witnessed the sexual abuse of minors and/or had a reasonable
suspicion that children before them were being sexually assaulted and failed to report.
employees'
124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants, their agents and/or
violation of Child Protective Services Act, Plaintiff sustained in the past and will sustain in the
future pain and suffering,
duties, and negligence of Defendants, their agents and/or employees, all without any negligence
on the part of Plaintiff
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, for general,
compensatory, special and punitive damages, in a sum which exceeds the jurisdictional limits of
all lower Courts which might otherwise have jurisdiction; together with the costs and
disbursements of this action and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
22
23 of 24
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: February2 020
New York, New York
Resp allly Sp ed,
Kathféen R. Thomas, Esq.
kat@tlepe.law
Thomas Labarbera Counselors At Law
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10004
Ph: (917) 209-6446
Taylor Rayfield, Esq.

TRavfield@gbw.law
Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2100
Santa Monica, CA 90012
(Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending)
23
24 of 24

Robert K Druger v. Syracuse

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Robert K Druger v. Syracuse

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 02/25/2020 01:07 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF SUMMONS

Dated: February 25, 2020

Kathleen Thomas, Esq.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF COMPLAINT

DEFENDANTS SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SYRACUSE

UNIVERSITY, SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION hereby allege as follows:

4. The CVA § 3 states:

of the criminal sexual assaults and sexual abuse alleged herein.

to the CVA statute of limitations set forth in the CVA § 3.

exceptions enunciated in Section 1602 of the New York CPLR.

Jurisdiction and Venue

acts within the State of New York.

in that the Defendants reside in this County.

11. Plaintiff ROBERT K. DRUGER is a resident of Onondaga County in the State of

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Syracuse University is a private

of Onondaga, and State of New York.

13. Defendant Syracuse University's principal place of business is located at 900

South Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13244.

is, the governing body of Defendant Syracuse University.

of business at 900 S. Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, New York 13244.

regulations that govern Defendant Syracuse University.

17. Hereinafter, Defendant Syracuse University and Defendant Board of Trustees of

Syracuse University will be referred to collectively as "Defendant Syracuse University".

County of Onondaga, New York.

Syracuse City, in the County of Onondaga, New York.

Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY 13224.

Plaintiff are as follows:

a. Sexual Abuse Perpetrated on the Syracuse University Campus

25. In 1976, Conrad Montgomery Avondale Mainwaring (hereinafter "Mainwaring"),

attending the summer camps at the Camp Greylock facilities.

27. Beginning in approximately 1980, Mainwaring was admitted as a student and

employed by Defendant Syracuse University.

28. From 1980 - was under work or

otherwise employed by Defendant Syracuse University. Mainwaring worked in various

29. From 1980 - Defendant Syracuse held out

school students on the Defendant Syracuse University campus.

Defendant Syracuse University.

31. From 1980 - lived in student

employed as the resident advisor.

overnight with Mainwaring.

35. As a result of the above-mentioned unfettered and unsupervised access,

eventually graduated from Syracuse University.

37. Mainwaring's sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff continued throughout

eventual enrollment at Syracuse University.

38. Throughout Mainwaring's employment at Syracuse University, and prior to the

reports of sexual abuse perpetrated by Mainwaring.

40. Throughout Mainwaring's employment at Syracuse University, and prior to the

underage male students, Defendant Syracuse University continued to allow Mainwaring

in child sexual abuse perpetrated against Plaintiff.

b. Sexual Abuse Perpetrated on the Nottingham High School Campus

alone and isolated with Mainwaring for significant periods of time.

in this private office.

45. Throughout the time of his employment as a counselor at Nottingham High

and/or social/emotional development support for young high school students.

field of school counseling.

with and advise vulnerable underage youth.

Defendant School District.

occasions privately in his Nottingham office.

52. Throughout Mainwaring's employment, and while he held an office at

High School campus.