|
NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT COUNTY
OF KINGS
* Cheryl
D. Uzamere *
Index No.:_______
Plaintiff, * VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- *
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. also known as "FEGS, Inc., Roberta
Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D. and Clifford Nafus *
Defendants. Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere, appearing on her own behalf, states and alleges
the following:
1) That at all times herein relevant, the Plaintiff was a resident of the State of New York, City
of Brooklyn and County of Kings.
2) That while Plaintiff was registered as an outpatient and in receipt of government-funded mental
health rehabilitation services from Defendants, Defendant Federation Employment and Guidance Services, Inc. (hereinafter
“FEGS, Inc.”), by its employees Roberta Siegel, Assistant Vice President, Dr. Howard Forester, Psychiatrist and
Clifford Nafus, Rehabilitation Technician committed defamation per se against Plaintiff, to wit: 3)
That on December 1, 2009, Defendant Clifford Nafus consented to Plaintiff's psychosocial history as prepared by Defendants
which states that “given client's history of making anti-Semitic remarks, treatment at an FEGS facility is inappropriate
for her” by signing his name on the aforementioned psychosocial history (Exhibit A, pages 1-2). 4)
That on December 4, 2009, Defendants Roberta Siegal and Howard Forster, M.D consented to the aforesaid psychosocial history
by signing their name on the aforementioned psychosocial history. AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5) Plaintiff hereby
repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 as if fully set forth herein. 6)
That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus owed Plaintiff the duty of
not using untrue, irrelevant, defamatory words that Defendants knew would be passed on to other mental health service providers.
7) That Defendant FEGS, by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus owed
Plaintiff the duty of telling Plaintiff of their belief so as to give Plaintiff, an outpatient in a government-funded mental
health rehabilitation program, the New-York-State-Constitution-due-process and equal protection rights to avail herself of
legal procedures established by the New York State Office of Mental Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and its subsidiary the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration so as to be able to defend herself against
Defendants' defamatory allegation.
8) That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus,
had a duty not to publicly defame Plaintiff by accusing Plaintiff with violating a halachic/Jewish religious law that requires
non-Jews to love all Jews, while in a taxpayer-funded, secular setting (see Exhibit B, 1-3). 9)
That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus owed Plaintiff the duty
not to conspire with each other to facilitate the defamation of the Plaintiff. 10) That Defendant
FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus owed Plaintiff the duty of limiting its
description of the Plaintiff to objective, psychiatric, psychosocial criteria, and to not describe Plaintiff based on their
own personal, halachic/Jewish religious criteria. 11) That Defendant FEGS, Inc, by its employees
Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus who are experts in the field of mental health, owed Plaintiff the duty
of not describing Plaintiff to others in a way that would cause them to think and act negatively toward the Plaintiff, thereby
inflicting mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 12) That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants'
tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn, difficulty in securing outpatient mental health
services and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A SECOND SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CAUSE OF ACTION
13) Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
14) That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus
failed in their duty to not use untrue, irrelevant, defamatory words in Plaintiff's psychosocial history that Defendants knew
would be passed on to other mental health service providers. 15) That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees
Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus, failed in their duty to tell Plaintiff of their belief so as to give
Plaintiff, an outpatient in a government-funded mental health rehabilitation program, the New-York-State-Constitution-due-process
and equal protection rights to avail herself of legal procedures established by New York State Office of Mental Health,
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
to be able to defend herself against Defendants' defamatory allegation. 16) That Defendant
FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus, failed in their duty not to publicly
defame Plaintiff with violating halachic/Jewish religious law that requires non-Jews to love Jews while in a taxpayer-funded,
secular setting.
17) That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus failed
in their duty to not conspire with each other to facilitate the defamation of the Plaintiff. 18)
That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus failed in their duty to
limit their description of the Plaintiff to objective, psychiatric, psychosocial criteria as established by the the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), instead of their own personal, halachic/Jewish
religious criteria.
19) That Defendant FEGS, Inc., by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus,
experts in the field of mental health, failed in their duty to not describe Plaintiff to others in a way that would cause
them to think and act negatively toward the Plaintiff, thereby inflicting mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 20)
That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn,
difficulty in securing outpatient mental health services and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was
damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A THIRD SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION 21) Plaintiff hereby
repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set forth herein. 22)
That Plaintiff suffered public scorn because of Defendants' publication of Plaintiff defamatory psychosocial history. 23)
That Plaintiff suffered public scorn by other outpatient mental health service providers whose Jewish supervisors turned Plaintiff
down for fictitious reasons, but who secretly turned Plaintiff down based on their belief that Plaintiff violated halachic/Jewish
law.
24) That Plaintiff suffered public scorn based on Defendants' failure to allow Plaintiff to implement
legal procedures established by the New York State Office of Mental Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
and its subsidiary the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to be able to defend against Defendants'
defamatory description of Plaintiff's psychosocial history. 25) That Plaintiff suffered public scorn based
on Defendants' vague description of Plaintiff's religious crime; that Jewish supervisors of other outpatient mental health
service providers were left to believe that Plaintiff “has a history of making anti-Semitic remarks” but were
not told what remarks Plaintiff made there were anti-Semitic. 26) That Plaintiff has suffered public scorn to
the point where Plaintiff is unable to be found eligible by FEGS and other continuing day treatment programs based on the
Defendants' religiously-oriented defamation of Plaintiff as “anti-Semitic.” 27)
That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants' tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of public scorn
and severe mental and emotional distress for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $10,000,000.00. AS AND FOR A FOURTH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION 28)
Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth
herein.
29) That Defendant FEGS, Inc. by its employees Roberta Siegal, Howard Forster, M.D and Clifford Nafus
knew or should have known that their conspiring with each other to render permanent Plaintiff's defamatory psychosocial history
facilitated the destruction of Plaintiff's good name and the destruction of Plaintiff's ability to avail herself of the New-York-State-Constitution
right to due process of law and equal protection under the law with those outpatient mental health services whose Jewish
supervisors saw Defendants' defamatory psychosocial history of the Plaintiff and summarily turned down Plaintiff's request
to avail herself of their services.
30) That Defendants' defamation of Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to be unable to exercise her right to
due process of law and equal protection under the law; and that Plaintiff's inability to avail herself of her right
to due process of law and equal protection under municipal, state, federal and constitutional law with other
outpatient mental health care providers is itself an injury recognized by law as giving rise to an implied cause of action
in the nature of Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172 (1996) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
31) That loss of reputation based on the stigma of being publicly labeled an anti-Semitic is an injury
that is recognized in law.
32) That the mental and emotional disstress resulting from Defendants tortious acts are recognized
in the law.
33) That Defendants knew or should have known that Defendants' tortious conduct as described would
inflict great mental and emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 34) That wholly and solely as a result of Defendants'
tortious acts, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries by way of loss of reputation, for which Plaintiff was damaged in the amount
of $10,000,000.00. PRAYER
FOR RELIEF
35) Plaintiff respectfully prays for this honorable to present Plaintiff's action for
defamation to a jury for the purpose of holding a trial. 36) Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court
tolls the statute of limitations with regard to New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 215, actions to be
commenced within one year; that while Plaintiff strongly suspected that Defendants engaged in slandering the Plaintiff
as anti-Semitic, Plaintiff never suspected that Plaintiff would be foolish enough to memorialize their act of defamation by
engaging in libel; that Defendants purposely violated Plaintiff's right to due process of law and Plaintiff's
right to equal protection under the law by failing to inform Plaintiff that they memorialized their reason for discharge of
the Plaintiff as commission of the religious crime of anti-Semitism so that Plaintiff would not suspect that their reason
for discharging Plaintiff was put in writing; that Plaintiff's discovery of tangible, written evidence of Defendants'
act of defamation is so close to the expiration of the statute of limitation for libel, slander, false words causing special
damages that Plaintiff prays that this honorable Court tolls the statute of limitation so as to allow Plaintiff to exercise
her right to due process and equal protection under the law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Cheryl D. Uzamere respectfully prays
this Court for a jury trial, for this honorable Court to require Defendants to make a full public retraction of their defamatory,
criminal and cruel statements, and to render judgment against the Defendants in the sum of $10,000.000.00. * Dated: Brooklyn, New
York February
__, 2011 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF KINGS
) ss: I, Cheryl D. Uzamere, am the Plaintiff in the within Verified Complaint. I have read the
foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The contents are true to my own knowledge except as to matters therein
stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
|
