2020 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. …

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.

Receipt # 2579991

Book Page CIVIL

Return To:ALEX CORD DELL450 New Karner RoadAlbany, NY 12205

No. Pages: 15

Instrument: EFILING INDEX NUMBER

Control #: 202012190073Index #: E2020010086

Date: 12/19/2020

WRIGHT, DENNISON W LAGARES-WRIGHT, SONIA

Time: 8:51:00 AM

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER THE CITY OF ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT THE CITY OF ROCHESTER EMERGENCYCOMMUNICATIONS-911 DEPARTMENT THE COUNTY OF MONROE THE COUNTY OF MONROE PUBLIC SAFETYDEPARTMENT State Fee Index Number $165.00 County Fee Index Number $26.00 State Fee Cultural Education $14.25 State Fee RecordsManagement

$4.75

Total Fees Paid: $210.00

Employee: RR

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICEWARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKSENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THESTATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.

JAMIE ROMEO

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 12/18/2020 08:34 PM INDEX NO. E2020010086

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/18/2020

1 of 15

202012190073 /19/2020 08:51:00 AM CI 202012190073

STATE OF NEW YORK:

SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF MONROE

DENNISON W. WRIGHT and SONIA LAGARES-WRIGHT

Plaintiffs, SUMMONS-against-

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, THE CITY OF ROCHESTERPOLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF ROCHESTEREMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS-911 DEPARTMENT,THE COUNTY OF MONROE, THE COUNTY OF MONROEPUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, THE MONROE COUNTYOFFICE OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,THE MONROE COUNTY 911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPARTMENT and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT IN THIS

ACTION AND TO SERVE A COPY OF YOUR ANSWER, OR, IF THE COMPLAINTIS NOT SERVED WITH THIS SUMMONS, TO SERVE A NOTICE OFAPPEARANCE ON THE PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE

SERVICE OF THIS SUMMONS, EXCLUSIVE OF THE DAY OF SERVICE, WHERESERVICE IS MADE BY DELIVERY UPON YOU PERSONALLY WITHIN THE

STATE, OR WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF SERVICE WHERESERVICE IS MADE IN ANY OTHER MANNER. IN CASE OF YOUR FAILURE TOAPPEAR OR ANSWER, JUDGMENT WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU BY

DEFAULT FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT.

TRIAL IS TO BE HELD IN THE COUNTY OF MONROE.

THE BASIS OF THE VENUE IS DEFENDANTS RESIDENCE.

DEFENDANTS ARE LOCATED IN MONROE COUNTY.



2 of 15

202012190073 12/1912020 08:51:00 A CI 202012190073

DATED: December 3, 2020 Certified pursuant to § 130-1.1-a

of the Rules of the Chief Administrator

and the matter was not obtained in

viola·

n of 22 NYCRR 1200.41-a

ALEX C. DELL, ESQLAW FIRM OF ALEX DELL, PLLCAttorneys for Plaintiffs

Office and P.O. Address:

450 New Karner Road

Albany, New York 12205

(518) 862-5555

To the above named Defendants:

The nature of the action is NYS General Municipal Law 205-e,

NYS General Obligations Law Section 11-106 and negligence.

The relief sought is money damages.



3 of 15

202012190073 12/1912G20 08:51:00 AM 202012190073

STATE OF NEW YORK:

SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF MONROE

DENNISON W. WRIGHT and SONIA LAGARES-WRIGHT

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT-against-

THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, THE CITY OF ROCHESTERPOLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF ROCHESTEREMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS-911 DEPARTMENT,THE COUNTY OF MONROE, THE COUNTY OF MONROEPUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT, THE MONROE COUNTYOFFICE OF PROBATION AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,THE MONROE COUNTY 91 I EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONSDEPARTMENT and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against the defendants, through their attorneys, the

Law Firm of Alex Dell, PLLC, upon information and belief, allege as follows:

1. The plaintiffs reside in the County of Monroe and State of New York, and

were so residing on October 4, 2019.

2. The City of Rochester is a municipal corporation, with a principal location

of City Hall, 30 Church Street, Rochester, New York 14614.

3. The City of Rochester Police Department is a department of the City of

Rochester with its principal office located at the City Public Safety Building, 185

Exchange Boulevard, Rochester, New York 14614.



4 of 15

202012190073 12/19/2020 08:51:00 AM CI 202012190073

4. The City of Rochester Emergency Communications-911 Department is a

department of the City of Rochester and the County of Monroe with its principal office

located at the Rochester Emergency Communications Office, 321 Main Street, Rochester,

New York. 14608.

5. The County of Monroe is a municipal corporation with its principal office

located at the 110 Monroe County Office Building, 39 West Main Street, Rochester, NY

14614.

6. The County of Monroe Public Safety Department is a department of the

County of Monroe with its principal office located at City Place,4th

Floor, 50 West Main

Street, Rochester, NY 14614.

7. The Monroe County Office of Probation and Community Corrections is

part of the County of Monroe Public Safety Department with its principal office located

at 33 North Fitzhugh Street, Suite 200, Rochester, New York 14614-1233.

8. The Monroe County 911 Emergency Communications Department is part

of the County of Monroe Public Safety Department and is located at 321 West Main

Street, Rochester, New York 14608.

9. The Monroe County 911 Emergency Communications Department is

overseen by the County of Monroe. The City of Rochester operates the Emergency

Communications Department under contract with, and supervision by, the County of

Monroe.



5 of 15

202012190073 12/19/2020 08:51:00 AM Cl 202012190073

10. John Does 1-10 were and are unidentified employees and/or agents of the

defendant municipal entities involved in the circumstances surrounding and leading up to

the events that as the subject of this legal claim.

11. A motion requesting that the Court allow service of a late Notice of Claim,

nunc pro tunc is pending. Should said motion be granted, service of the Notice of Claim

will be deemed timely.

12. Therefore, it will be deemed that more than 30 days has passed since

service of the Notice of Claim and the adjustment or payment thereof has been neglected

or refused.

13. On October 4, 2019 Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright was seriously injured

while in the course of his employment as a police officer for the City of Rochester. The

Defendant City of Rochester does not haveWorkers'

Compensation Insurance. As the

Defendant City of Rochester does not haveWorkers'

Compensation Insurance, Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright is entitled to file a legal claim against his employer, see: Diegelman

v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.Y.3d 231 (2016).

14. On October 4, 2019 Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright was at work when he,

and other officers who were on patrol, received notification from an Emergency

Communications dispatcher of a call concerning an incident that was taking place at 37

Peck Street in the City of Rochester. The owner of the property had called for assistance,

reporting that her grandson, Keith Williams, was 'acting crazy'. The call came in at

11:44:27 in the morning. The recording of the 911 call confirms that the caller identified

Keith Williams by name, along with the property address.



6 of 15

202012190073 12/19/2020 08:51:00 AM Cl 202012190073

15. The Defendant City of Rochester Police Department has divided the City of

Rochester into zones, and officers are assigned to specific Car Beats. On October 4, 2019

Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright was assigned to Beat 257. The property address at issue

was located in Beat 297. There was no immediate response to the call. Thereafter, at

12:21:41in the afternoon, approximately 35 minutes after the call had been dispatched,

and to ensure a response to a pending, open call, Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright accepted

the call, notified dispatch, and proceeded to 37 Peck Street. At no time was Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright directed not to respond to this call unless he had backup.

16. Upon information and belief, Keith Williams is an individual known to the

Defendants. Keith Williams resides at 37 Peck Street with his grandmother, Vernell

Beauford, and other individuals.

17. There have been numerous calls made to the Defendants'emergency

entities from, or about, 37 Peck Street. Upon information and belief, in the 18 months

before this incident there were approximately 54 calls concerning 37 Peck Street. These

calls have been for the purpose of reporting issues that required a response, and

intervention, by Defendant City of Rochester Police Department. Among the many calls

that were documented before October 4, 2019, a June ], 2019 call resulted in a standoff

involving Keith Williams and the Defendant City of Rochester Police Department that

was widely reported by the media.

18 Upon information and belief, in 2019 Keith Williams was in the care,

custody and control of the Defendant County of Monroe Probation Department. The

Defendants were aware of and familiar with Mr.Williams'

history of mental health



7 of 15

202012190073 /19/2020 08:51:00 AM CI 202012190073

issues. The Defendants failed to take any steps to address or provide treatment for said

issues.

19. Despite the many documented incidents and calls to 37 Peck Street, there

were no notices or warnings attached to this address by any of the Defendants. A

premise warning identifies those locations that have a known history, so that when a call

for service is received and dispatched, the officer tasked with responding knows that a

different protocol is required to ensure the safety of those responding. Nor were any

verbal wamings issued to Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright about the many previous

incidents and calls pertaining to 37 Peck Street when he eported that he would respond

to the open call at 37 Peck Street.

20. As there were no premise, or other wamings, associated with 37 Peck Street

Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright responded to the October 4, 2019 call without backup.

Upon arriving at 37 Peck Street and entering the house Officer Wright was told by the

property owner that her grandson, Keith Williams, was in a room off the main hallway.

After entering the room Plaintiff Wright observed Keith Williams hiding under a bed

frame.

21. Keith Williams thereafter exited from under the bed frame, behaving in an

agitated state. Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright attempted to interact with, and calm Mr.

Williams down. When Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright realized that Mr.Williams'

behavior was getting worse he called for backup on two separate occasions.



8 of 15

202012190073 /19/2020 08:51:00 AM 2020121900

22. Before the requested backup arrived Keith Williams retrieved a knife and

violently attacked Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright, stabbing him multiple times in the

head, face, eye and body.

23. Several individuals who were in the vicinity heard Plaintiff Dennison W.

Wright's calls for help went to his assistance, helping to restrain Keith Williams, before

backup arrived. Upon the arrival of backup from multiple police agencies the scene was

secured and Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright, who was observed to be seriously injured,

was transported to the hospital to receive medical treatment.

24. Pursuant to NYS General Municipal Law Section 205-e, Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright, has a claim for injuries sustained due to theDefendants'

violations

of, and/or failure to comply with the requirements of any statutes, ordinances, rules,

orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governrnents,

or any and all of their departments, divisions, and bureaus, including, but not limited to:

(A) In violating the Minimum Standards for the operation of public

safety answering points, as promulgated by the New York State Interoperable and

Emergency Communication Board in accord with NYS County Law Section 328.

(1) Monroe County had previously been awarded a grant of

$5,468,173 for the purposes of enhancing radio coverage and interoperability with

surrounding counties and the intemational border, improving Standard Operating

Procedures, and Training and Exercise Programs.

(2) In failing to uphold the minimum standards of training as

required by 21 NYCRR 5201.3, in that Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright was not given anyof the extensive premise history of the location to which he was responding on October 4,

2019. The premise history for 37 Peck Street was in the possession of the Defendants.

The failure to provide premise history resulted in Plaintiff Wright being the sole

responder to a call that should have involved the assignment of multiple responders due

to the property history. This failure resulted in the attack upon Plaintiff Wright's and his

significant injuries;



9 of 15

202012190073 19/2020 08:51:00 AM Cl 202012190073

(3) In failing to uphold the minimum standards of equipment as

required by 21 NYCRR 5203.3, in that Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright was not given anyof the extensive premise history of the location to which he was responding on October 4,2019. The failure to provide premise history, which was, or should have been able to be

accessed by the Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) system, or other information systems

to which the Defendants had access, resulted in Plaintiff Wright responding to a call that

required multiple responders due to the property history. This failure resulted in the

attack upon Plaintiff Wright and his significant injuries;

(B) In failing to move under NYS Mental Hygiene Law Section 9.60,

Assisted Outpatient Treatment, to ensure that Keith Williams received and complied with

all available and necessary mental health treatment options, including the administration

of medication, so as to ensure he behaved in in a way so as not to endanger others. Upon

information and belief Keith Williams was under the supervision of the Defendant

Monroe County Office of Probation and Community Relations, which was part of the

Defendant County of Monroe Public Safety Department, in 2019. The failure of said

Defendants to ensure that Keith Williams, who was well known to said Defendants, was

receiving and complying with appropriate and necessary medication and treatment

protocols resulted in it being foreseeable that someone, such as Officer Wright, could be

injured while responding to one of the frequent calls involving Mr. Williams.

(C) in violating Section 27-a of the Labor Laws of the State of New

York, requiring a safe place to work-see specific violations below;

(1) In failing to uphold the minimum standards of training as

required by 21 NYCRR 5201.3, see (A)(2) above;

(2) In failing to uphold the minimum standards of equipment as

required by 21 NYCRR 5203.3, see (A)(3) above;

(3) In failing to move under NYS Mental Hygiene Law Section

9.60, Assisted Outpatient Treatment; see (B) above;

(D) in violating Section 27-b of the Labor Laws of the State of New

York, and 12 NYCRR 800.6, requiring that each employer prepare and implement a

Workplace Violence Plan;

(1) Said Defendants did prepare and implement a Workplace

Violence Prevention Program with an Effective Date of March 2011 and a Revision Date

of October 2018. However, Defendants did not comply with Sections 5.8-Risk

Assessments, 5.9-Prevention, 5.9.2-Site Specific Risks, and 5.10-Training. In particular,

theDefendants' General Summation and Observations address concerns regarding



10 of 15

202012190073 9/2020 08:51:00 AM Cl 202012190073

unwritten policies and procedures and emergency communication. Had there been a

written procedure in place, a premise warning or other notification should have been

issued, issued either in writing, or orally, due to the history of 37 Peck Street. Had such a

warning been in place Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright would not have responded to the

call at issue without backup. In addition, upon information and belief, there was an

existing policy in place on October 4, 2019 requiring calls to locations with premise

warnings involve the presence of more than one officer, as well as response by a

supervisor. It is foreseeable that when an officer responds to a property that has a known

history, without the knowledge of that history, or without backup, injuries could occur.

(E) Respondent City of Rochester has a Charter and has enacted local

laws that are contained within the Rochester City Code. Article 8 of the Charter

addresses the Police Department. In accord with the authority vested in the Chief of

Police by the Charter of the City of Rochester General Orders, Rules and Regulations

have been issued for the Police Department. The Defendants are in violation of the

following:

(1) General Order 540: Radio/Mobile Data Computer (MDC)Procedures-VI.B-Field Unit Communications Procedures- for failing to include the

premise history of 37 Peck Street for the identified purpose of officer safety. Had the

premise history of 37 Peck Street been issued with the call, Officer Wright would not

have responded to said call without backup. It is foreseeable that a location with a

significant history of calls and intervention by the police department is one where the

responding officer could be injured.

(2) General Order 540: Radio/Mobile Data Computer (MDC)

Procedures-VII.A-Supervisory Responsibilities-for failing to have a Field Supervisor

respond and go to 37 Peck Street as backup to Plaintiff Wright. Had the premise historyof 37 Peck Street been issued with the call, there would have been supervisory oversight

of said call and Officer Wright would not have responded to said call without backup. It

is foreseeable that a location with a significant history of calls and intervention by the

police department is one where the responding officer could be injured when the correct

protocol is not followed.

25. The failure of the Defendants to comply with the statutes, ordinances, etc.,

listed above, directly and/or indirectly resulted in the injuries sustained by Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright.

26. In accord with NYS General Obligations Law, Section 11-106, and the

terms set forth therein, Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright is also claiming a cause of action



11 of 15

202012190073 12/19/2020 08:51:00 AM CI 202012190073

for negligence and damages against the County of Monroe Defendants, in addition to the

allegations based upon NYS General Municipal Law Section 205-e as listed in Paragraph

16. The negligence of the County of Monroe Defendants consists of acts and/or

omissions, including, but not limited to the following:

(a) in failing to take reasonable steps or precautions to ensure the safetyof Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright;

(b) in failing to ensure that accurate records were maintained, integrated

and distributed regarding the premise history of 37 Peck Street and

that said information was transmitted to Plaintiff Dennison W.

Wright in a timely fashion;

(c) in failing to properly monitor and supervise Keith Williams, a person

known the Defendants, and who had been involved in a standoff

with theDefendants'

agents and employees, approximately four

months before the October 4, 2019 call which is the subject of this

litigation;

(d) in failing to advise Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright that the

dispatched call at issue involved Keith Williams, a person known to

the Defendants, and who had been involved in a standoff with theDefendants'

agents and employees, approximately four months

before the October 4, 2019 call which is the subject of this litigation;

(e) in negligently and/or recklessly failing to warn Claimant Dennison

W. Wright of the potential danger to which he was exposed when

responding to the call at issue, over and above the potential dangers

to which Claimant Wright was exposed when responding to a call in

the course of his employment.

27. To the extent that any of the claims presented on behalf of Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright raise the issue of a special duty, it is alleged that Plaintiff Wright

does not have to meet said standard as he was not acting as a member of the public at the

time of the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit, or in the alternative, Plaintiff

Dennison W. Wright is owed a special duty as the Defendants had an obligation to act on



12 of 15

202012190 9/2020 08:51:00 AM ý 202012190073

his behalf, knew that a failure to act could lead to harm, had direct contact with him and

Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright justifiably relied on the information provided by the

Defendants and said reliance resulted in significant, permanent injuries being sustained

by Officer Wright.

28. Upon information and belief, this action is within one or more exceptions

of Article 16 of the CPLR with respect to the liability of joint and several tortfeasors.

29. That the said accident and resulting injuries to Plaintiff Dennison W.

Wright were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants without any negligence on

the part of the Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright contributing thereto.

30. As a result of said accident, Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright has incurred

serious and severe permanent personal injuries, incurred medical expenses and sustained

other consequential damages.

31. That Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright, as a result of said accident has

suffered and will continue to suffer severe psychological stress and pain.

FOR AND AS A SECOND AND DISTINCT

CAUSE OF ACTION

32. Plaintiff Sonia Lagares-Wright repeats and reiterates all of the allegations

contained in the paragraphs above as if the same were set forth in full here.

33. That by reason of the above allegations, Plaintiff Sonia Lagares-Wright

has been caused great expense, loss and trouble; that the Plaintiff Sonia Lagares-Wright

has been deprived of the services, earnings and society of Plaintiff Dennison W. Wright;

that the ability of said plaintiff/spouse to render services and assistance to Plaintiff



13 of 15

202012190073 12/19/2020 08:51:00 AM 202012190073

Dennison W. Wright has been impaired and depreciated all to the Plaintiff, Sonia

Lagares-Wright's damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants in the first

cause of action and in the second cause of action, together with the costs, interest and

disbursements of this action. The amount of damages sought in this matter exceeds the

jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts.

DATED: December 3, 2020 Certified pursuant to § 130-1.1-a

of the Rules of the Chief Administrator

and the matter was not obtained in

violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.41-a

ALEX C. DELL, ESQ.

LAW FIRM OF ALEX DELL, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Office and P.O. Address:

450 New Karner Road

Albany, New York 12205

(518) 862-5555



14 of 15

202012190073 9/2020 08:51:00 AM Cl 202012190073

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK }COUNTY OF ALBANY } ss:

ALEX C. DELL, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the deponent is an

attorney with the Law Firm of Alex Dell, PLLC and the attorney of record for the

Plaintiffs Dennison W. Wright and Sonia Lagares-Wright, in the within action; deponent

has read the foregoing Summons and Complaint, knows the contents thereof; that the

same is true to deponent's own knowledge.

The reason this verification is made by your deponent and not made by the

Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs are not within the County of Albany where deponent has

his main office.

The source of my information and grounds of my belief are the general

investigation of facts.

Dated: December 3, 2020

ALEX C. DELL, ESQ.

LAW FIRM OF ALEX DELL, PLLCAttorneys for Plaintiffs

450 New Karner Road

Albany, New York I2205

(518) 862-5555

STATE OF NEW YORK }COUNTY OF ALBANY } ss:

On December 3 , 2020, before me personally came Alex C. Dell, to me known

and known to me to be the individual described herein, and who executed the foregoing

and duly aclœowledged to me that he executed the same,

LORI ARANEONOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK

Registration No. OiAR6378878OuaMed b Albany County .

Commission Expires August 6,2022

Notary Public



15 of 15

Documents

2020 MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. …