Conor Dwyer Reynolds V City of Rochester

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022 08:56 PM INDEX NO.
E2022005139
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/11/2022
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE THIS IS NOT A BILL. THIS IS YOUR RECEIPT.
Receipt # 3131798
Book Page CIVIL
Return To: No. Pages: 15

ALISON ELLIS FRICK
Instrument: EFILING INDEX NUMBER
Control #: 202207120091
Index #: E2022005139
Date: 07/12/2022
Dwyer Reynolds, Conor Time: 8:57:57 AM
City of Rochester
Rochester Police Accountability Board
State Fee Index Number $165.00

County Fee Index Number $26.00
State Fee Cultural Education $14.25
State Fee Records $4.75 Employee: CW
Management
Total Fees Paid: $210.00
State of New York
MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

WARNING – THIS SHEET CONSTITUTES THE CLERKS
ENDORSEMENT, REQUIRED BY SECTION 317-a(5) &
SECTION 319 OF THE REAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK. DO NOT DETACH OR REMOVE.
JAMIE ROMEO
MONROE COUNTY CLERK
1 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022 08:56 PM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

MONROE COUNTY
CONOR DWYER REYNOLDS,
Petitioner, Index No.
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the

Civil Practice Law and Rules
-against-
CITY OF ROCHESTER; ROCHESTER

POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD,
Respondents.
VERIFIED PETITION
Petitioner Conor Dwyer Reynolds, by and through his attorneys, Kaufman Lieb
Lebowitz & Frick LLP, for his verified petition pursuant to Article 78 of the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules, respectfully alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This action arises from Respondents’ deliberate failure to comply with the
New York Open Meetings Law (“OML”) in order to conceal the wrongful suspension of
Rochester Police Accountability Board (“Board”) Executive Director Conor Dwyer
Reynolds made in retaliation for his sexual harassment complaints.
2. In April 2022, Dwyer Reynolds informed former Board Chair Shani
Wilson that he intended to report her sexual harassment of him. In response, Wilson,
with the aid of friends involved in the Board’s work, began a secret campaign to oust
Dwyer Reynolds by soliciting criticisms of his work and manufacturing complaints
about his leadership.
2 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
3. In service of that goal, the Board held at least six non-public meetings
between April and May where it undertook deliberations and made decisions regarding
the work of the agency and, specifically, Dwyer Reynolds.
4. The Board never made the community aware of these non-public
meetings. No meeting was publicly noticed. None was recorded. None has minutes
memorializing what occurred.
5. Then, only after Dwyer Reynolds’s fate was already sealed, the Board held
a meeting on May 12 to formally suspend him. But rather than publicly sharing the basis
for its suspension decision—which would have revealed its pretextual and retaliatory
nature—the Board swiftly moved into executive session, disclosing only that it needed to
discuss a “personal matter.” The barebones minutes from the May 12 executive session
do not reflect any motion, vote, or decision with respect to Dwyer Reynolds.
6. Nevertheless, as the Board met behind closed doors on May 12, the City’s
security team showed up at Dwyer Reynolds’s home to inform him that the Board had
“voted” to suspend him.
7. By holding multiple non-public meetings and failing to disclose the
substance of the May 12 executive session, the Board flouted the OML with the express
intention of hiding a wrongful process that, if made public, would have faltered under
the community’s watchful eye. If the Board had simply followed the OML’s mandates,
Dwyer Reynolds would never have been suspended. Nor would the agency’s staff now be
working amid a reign of punishment and retaliation that is sustained (and concealed
from the public) by the Board’s continuing use of secret meetings that violate the OML.
3 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
8. Dwyer Reynolds brings this Article 78 Petition to help restore the Board’s
values of accountability and transparency and end an interregnum of impunity and
secrecy.
PARTIES
9. Petitioner Conor Dwyer Reynolds is an individual who resides in
Rochester, New York. From October 16, 2020 to the present, Dwyer Reynolds has
served as the Executive Director of Respondent Rochester Police Accountability Board
and, as such, is an employee of Respondent City of Rochester.
10. Respondent City of Rochester (the “City”) is a municipality organized and
existing under the laws of New York State. The City is responsible for the policies,
practice, supervision, and conduct of its officers and agencies. The City is a body within
the meaning of Article 78 of the CPLR. The City’s principal office is located at 30 Church
Street, Rochester, NY 14614.
11. Respondent Rochester Police Accountability Board is an agency of the City
of Rochester charged with the powers and duties set forth in Section XVIII of the
Rochester City Charter. The Board is a body within the meaning of Article 78 of the
CPLR. The Board is overseen by Board Members, who, among other things, directly
supervise the Executive Director. The Board’s principal office is located at 245 East
Main Street, Rochester, NY 14604.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
12. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Open Meetings Law, New York
Public Officers Law § 107.
4 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
13. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 7803(1) and 7804(b) to
review the actions by bodies or officers who have failed to perform a duty enjoined upon
them by law.
14. Venue in the County of Monroe is proper pursuant to CPLR 504(2), 506(b)
and 503(a) as: (i) claims are asserted against the City of Rochester and the cause of
action arose in Monroe County; (ii) claims are asserted against a body with principal
offices located in Monroe County; and/or (iii) one or more of the parties resides in
Monroe County.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15. Throughout his time as Executive Director, Dwyer Reynolds worked diligently to
ensure Board members were aware of their obligations under the OML. Shortly after he
began working, he held a training session led by a City attorney that taught Board
members about the OML’s requirements. When the Board entered executive sessions,
Dwyer Reynolds made sure they explained why they were doing so in detail. Moreover,
he made sure that the minutes of any such executive session noted any motion made
(and the details of any vote thereon). Dwyer Reynolds Aff. ¶¶ 3-5.
16. On April 19, 2022, after 20 months of sexual harassment, humiliation, and
punishment by former Board Chair Shani Wilson, Dwyer Reynolds informed her that he
intended to report her conduct to the Board. Wilson replied, “I’m going to hurt you
because you hurt me.” Id. ¶ 7.
17. True to her word, following the April 19 conversation, Wilson and other Board
members with whom she is close friends began a campaign to oust Dwyer Reynolds’s as
Executive Director by manufacturing workplace complaints against him.
5 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
18. On information and belief, no Board Member took steps to discipline or suspend
Dwyer Reynolds prior to this conversation. To the contrary, Board Members have
consistently praised his work as exceptional. Certainly, Dwyer Reynolds was not made
aware of any performance concerns warranting such drastic measures. Id. ¶¶ 8-9.
19. On April 27, six or seven Board employees attended a meeting convened by an
unknown person. The apparent purpose of the meeting was to solicit and aggregate
criticisms of Dwyer Reynolds. Id. ¶ 10.
20. On April 28, Board Member Drorah Setel (a close friend of Wilson’s) hosted a
“social get-together” at her home for members of the Board. Once all Board Members
arrived, Wilson began a group discussion of what she called Dwyer Reynolds’s
“performance issues.” Id. ¶¶ 11-12.
21. Under the Open Meetings Law, the Board’s deliberations and decisions regarding
these “issues” rendered the event a public meeting. Yet the public was never made aware
of this April 28 meeting. It was never publicly noticed. There is no recording of it. There
are no minutes for it. Id.
22. The next day, April 29, Dwyer Reynolds received an email from an employee
asking him to address criticisms discussed at the April 27 meeting. The criticisms listed
in the email had to do with things like workplace communication, job expectations, and
hiring practices, rather than any kind of serious misconduct.
23. Shortly after, a Board Member called Dwyer Reynolds to say that Wilson had
emailed the Board asking for an “emergency meeting” to discuss his “performance.” Id.
¶ 13.
6 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
24. On April 30, Wilson texted Dwyer Reynolds to say the Board would “need a series
of meetings” to discuss his work and that she would “be in touch with a time to meet.”
Id.
25. On May 1, the Board’s “Executive Director Oversight Committee” met in order
to—in the words of committee co-chair Setel—“discuss the correct procedure” for
addressing “concerns” about Dwyer Reynolds. The public was never made aware of this
May 1 Board committee meeting. It was never publicly noticed. There is no recording of
it. There are no minutes. Id. ¶ 14.
26. The secrecy around the May 1 meeting (and the many non-public meetings to
follow) was intentional. In a follow-up email sent on May 2, Setel explicitly instructed
the Board that all meetings concerning Dwyer Reynolds would be “confidential.” Id.
¶ 15.
27. On May 5, the Board held a Board Meeting to speak with some of the Board
employees who had attend the April 27 meeting convened to solicit criticisms of Dwyer
Reynolds. The purpose of the May 5 meeting was again for the Board to deliberate about
the agency and Dwyer Reynolds’s work. Id. ¶ 19.
28. Although a Board Meeting was originally noticed for the evening of May 5, the
public perception was that this meeting had been cancelled. Indeed, the Board’s own
staff believed it had been cancelled, as Setel and Wilson told them on May 2 that the
scheduled Board Meeting had been replaced by a “retreat” that included an “executive
session.” Id. ¶¶ 16-20.
29. When a Board employee told Setel the proper procedure for an executive session
was to have an “open” meeting where the Board “state[d] the purpose of us entering into
7 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
executive session,” Setel replied, “I don’t think that will be possible unless you do that
on your own.” Id. ¶ 17.
30. Thus, the public was never made aware of this three-hour long May 5 meeting or
given the opportunity to attend. There is no recording of it. There are no minutes for it.
Id. ¶ 18.
31. On May 5, the Board immediately followed its first “Board Meeting” (which
Dwyer Reynolds was barred from attending) with a second, separate “Board Meeting”
that same night, wherein it invited Dwyer Reynolds to speak for ten minutes. Dwyer
Reynolds used his time to read a prepared statement that reported Wilson’s sexual
harassment and related misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 20-22.
32. The public was never made aware of this second Board meeting on May 5. It was
never publicly noticed. There is no recording of it. There are no minutes for it. Id. ¶ 21.
33. On May 7, a Saturday, the Board held yet another Board meeting to “determine
the next steps regarding” Dwyer Reynolds. During this meeting, the Board “considered
putting [Dwyer Reynolds] on a paid administrative leave, however they were not able to
reach a decision.” Id. ¶ 24.
34. The public was never made aware of this May 7 meeting of the Board. It was
never publicly noticed. There is no recording of it. There are no minutes for it. Id.
35. On May 8, the Board had a meeting to “talk” with Dwyer Reynolds. An email sent
from Setel to Dwyer Reynolds that day described the meeting as a “Board listening
session.” In reality, the meeting was yet another non-public opportunity for the Board to
deliberate about his work and the work of the agency. Id. ¶ 25.
36. The public was never made aware of this May 8 Board Meeting. It was never
publicly noticed. There is no recording of it. There are no minutes for it. Id. ¶ 26.
8 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
37. The day after this meeting, the Board employee who worked with Setel to arrange
the series of secret meetings emailed the President of City Council. The email claimed
that—in the face of inaction from the Board—the entirety of the Board staff was
“requesting” that Dwyer Reynolds be investigated and suspended. Days later, a group of
Board staff would email this employee to reject this idea and demand that she and
others stop presuming to speak on the employees’ behalf. Id. Ex. C.
38. On May 12, Dwyer Reynolds received a phone call from a Board Member telling
him the Board was heading into a “Board training” scheduled for 6:30 PM that night.
Earlier in the week, Setel emailed another Board employee asking them to “send out a
Zoom link for our Board training this Thursday [May 12] at 6:30? This is not a public
event.” Id. ¶ 27.
39. Yet rather than attending any sort of training on May 12, the Board convened
what it called a “Special Board Meeting.” Contrary to the Board’s own rules, this meeting
was not preceded by proper notice, failed to include a Board employee responsible for
taking minutes, and failed to have a publicly posted agenda. Contrary to the Board’s
regular practice, this meeting was not streamed on any of the Board’s social media
pages. Instead, it was livestreamed on City Council’s YouTube page, with minutes taken
by a City Council staffer. Neither Dwyer Reynolds nor the Board’s secretary was notified
this meeting was happening. Id. ¶¶ 28-29 .
40. This May 12 meeting lasted over three hours. All but 67 seconds were held in
executive session and thus not streamed on the City Council’s YouTube page. Before
entering executive session, the Board only disclosed that a “personal matter” needed to
be discussed; no further information about the session was provided. The public
9 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
portions of the meeting involved nothing more than a motion to enter an executive
session and adjourn the meeting. Id. ¶ 30.
41. The minutes from the May 12 meeting taken by City Council’s staff say nothing
about what happened during the three-hour long executive session. The minutes say
nothing of a motion to suspend Dwyer Reynolds. The minutes say nothing about who (if
anyone) voted to suspend Dwyer Reynolds, whether any such vote was unanimous, or
whether anyone opposed the suspension. The minutes also fail to state an important
fact: that Wilson, who appeared to be absent during the initial public portion of the
meeting, was present during the meeting’s executive session. These minutes, unlike
those for every other recent Board meeting, are not available on the Board’s website. Id.
¶¶ 32-33.
42. As the Board was in the midst of its executive session, a City security team
arrived at Dwyer Reynolds’s home and gave him a letter telling him that the Board had
“voted” to suspend him and banning from speaking with any Board members or
employees. The letter did not state why he had been suspended. When Dwyer Reynolds
called City Council’s Chief of Staff to ask why he had been suspended, the employee
replied: “I don’t think it’s been defined.” The next day, the City Council President sent a
private letter to the Board Members thanking them for their “quick action” to suspend
Dwyer Reynolds. Id. ¶ 34-35.
43. Since Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension, at least some Board Members have
recognized flaws in its “confidential” deliberative process. In a public meeting, one
Board Member criticized the Board for doing “most” of their work outside of open
meetings and making “decisions” without “thoughtful discussion of them” in public.
Another lamented Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension as an example of the Board “jumping to
10 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
make a quick, fast decision.” A third, agreeing that “speed kills,” called the decision a
“fiasco.” Upon learning about Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension, an ex-Board Member
decried their former colleagues’ secrecy, saying, “They are rogue now.” Id. ¶ 37.
44. Unfortunately, despite these concessions, the Board’s violations of the OML have
only continued. In the days following Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension, Setel and Wilson
helped create a “Special Committee” of the Board consisting of themselves and two
other Board Members. (The previous month, Setel had shot down the idea of creating
such a committee, saying that it “sort of leads to cronyism and the kind of ‘closed-door,
behind-the-scenes, private-agreement’ type of stuff that we really didn’t like
previously.”) Id. ¶¶ 38-39.
45. Nevertheless, on May 23, the Special Committee held a meeting with a select
group of community members over Zoom. Beyond those few invited, the public was
never made aware of this meeting of a Board committee. It was never publicly noticed.
There is no recording of it. There are no minutes for it. Id. ¶ 38.
46. On information and belief, despite meeting regularly to issue directives, guide
staff, and create policy, the Board’s Special Committee has never noticed its meetings,
made them open to the public, posted recordings of the meetings online, or taken
minutes during their meetings. Id. ¶¶ 38-39.
47. The few public meetings the Board has held since Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension
have typically mirrored the May 12 meeting insofar as they are held largely in executive
session. The public has been given scant information about what has been discussed in
these sessions, either beforehand or after they have concluded. Id. ¶¶ 41-42.
48. For example, on June 13, the Board held a secret meeting about PAB leadership
focusing on staff concerns about Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension. The public was not
10
11 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
notified of this meeting. By hiding that meeting from the public, the Board concealed
that its leadership has refused to address staffer concerns and has threatened those who
spoke out with discipline and termination. Nor did the public see staffers resist those
threats and press for accountability—including one staffer who, a week after raising
their concerns, was fired without explanation. Despite the important and revealing
nature of this meeting, it was never publicly noticed. It was never recorded. And it
appears that there are no minutes for it. Id. ¶44.
49. By intentionally flouting the OML to carry out the wrongful suspension of Dwyer
Reynolds, the Board has compromised very ethic of transparency and accountability
that it was designed to promote, and hurt the staff that Dwyer Reynolds is tasked with
protecting.
CAUSE OF ACTION
ARTICLE 78
50. Petitioner repeats and realleges each allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 47 as set forth fully herein.
51. The Open Meetings Law requires public bodies like the Board (and its
constitutive committees) to make decisions and deliberations meetings that are publicly
noticed and open to the public. N.Y. Public Officers Law §§ 103, 104. “In short, the
purpose of the Open Meetings Law is to prevent public officials from debating and
deciding in private what they are required to debate and decide in public.” Goetschius v.
Bd. of Educ. of the Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist., No. 2861/95, 1996 WL
34565310 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 31, 1996).
52. The Open Meetings Law further imposes requirements on a Board’s ability to
enter executive session, including requirements that the body “identif[y] the general
11
12 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” and take minutes “of any action
that is taken by a formal vote which shall consist of a record or summary of the final
determination of such action, and the date and vote thereon.” N.Y. Public Officers Law
§§ 105, 106.
53. Respondents have violated the OML by deliberately failing to publicly notice
meetings, failing to make meetings open to the public, and failing to disclose the nature
and substance of one or more executive sessions—all for the purpose of concealing its
machinations to remove Petitioner as Executive Director.
54. As a result of the Board’s OML violations, Petitioner was wrongfully suspended
and placed on administrative leave. He is thus an aggrieved person under the law, and
he is entitled to relief declaring that his suspension is void in whole.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner DWYER REYNOLDS prays for the following relief:
a. A declaration that Respondent Board failed to comply with the Open Meetings
Law;
b. A declaration that the suspension of Petitioner is void in whole;
c. An order requiring Respondent Board to have its members undergo a training
session, within sixty days, concerning the Open Meetings Law conducted by the
Committee on Open Government;
d. An award of costs and attorney’s fees to Petitioner; and
e. Other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper.
12
13 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
Dated: July 11, 2022
KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ

& FRICK LLP
_______________________
Alison Frick
Alanna Kaufman
18 E. 48th Street, Suite 802

New York, New York 10017
(212) 660-2332
Attorneys for Petitioner
13
14 of 15
202207120091 07/12/2022 08:57:57 AM CIVIL
202207120091
INDEX NO. E2022005139
15 of 15

Conor Dwyer Reynolds V City of Rochester

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conor Dwyer Reynolds V City of Rochester

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conor Dwyer Reynolds V City of Rochester

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: MONROE COUNTY CLERK 07/11/2022 08:56 PM INDEX NO.

Book Page CIVIL

Return To: No. Pages: 15

Dwyer Reynolds, Conor Time: 8:57:57 AM

State Fee Index Number $165.00

Total Fees Paid: $210.00

State of New York

MONROE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE

MONROE COUNTY CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

CONOR DWYER REYNOLDS,

Petitioner, Index No.

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the

CITY OF ROCHESTER; ROCHESTER

Civil Practice Law and Rules, respectfully alleges as follows:

Rochester Police Accountability Board (“Board”) Executive Director Conor Dwyer

Reynolds made in retaliation for his sexual harassment complaints.

2. In April 2022, Dwyer Reynolds informed former Board Chair Shani

Dwyer Reynolds by soliciting criticisms of his work and manufacturing complaints

about his leadership.

the work of the agency and, specifically, Dwyer Reynolds.

4. The Board never made the community aware of these non-public

memorializing what occurred.

“voted” to suspend him.

7. By holding multiple non-public meetings and failing to disclose the

values of accountability and transparency and end an interregnum of impunity and

9. Petitioner Conor Dwyer Reynolds is an individual who resides in

served as the Executive Director of Respondent Rochester Police Accountability Board

and, as such, is an employee of Respondent City of Rochester.

10. Respondent City of Rochester (the “City”) is a municipality organized and

Street, Rochester, NY 14614.

11. Respondent Rochester Police Accountability Board is an agency of the City

Main Street, Rochester, NY 14604.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

Public Officers Law § 107.

because you hurt me.” Id. ¶ 7.

Executive Director by manufacturing workplace complaints against him.

criticisms of Dwyer Reynolds. Id. ¶ 10.

“performance issues.” Id. ¶¶ 11-12.

are no minutes for it. Id.

hiring practices, rather than any kind of serious misconduct.

it. There are no minutes. Id. ¶ 14.

the agency and Dwyer Reynolds’s work. Id. ¶ 19.

session.” Id. ¶¶ 16-20.

on your own.” Id. ¶ 17.

harassment and related misconduct. Id. ¶¶ 20-22.

reach a decision.” Id. ¶ 24.

others stop presuming to speak on the employees’ behalf. Id. Ex. C.

event.” Id. ¶ 27.

this meeting was happening. Id. ¶¶ 28-29 .

session and adjourn the meeting. Id. ¶ 30.

Dwyer Reynolds. Id. ¶ 34-35.

recognized flaws in its “confidential” deliberative process. In a public meeting, one

meetings and making “decisions” without “thoughtful discussion of them” in public.

Another lamented Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension as an example of the Board “jumping to

“fiasco.” Upon learning about Dwyer Reynolds’s suspension, an ex-Board Member

behind-the-scenes, private-agreement’ type of stuff that we really didn’t like

previously.”) Id. ¶¶ 38-39.