Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seabury v. City of New York

May 18, 2006

MAJOR C. SEABURY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garaufis United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Major C. Seabury, appearing pro se , files the present action alleging a variety of claims against the City of New York. Plaintiff has paid the requisite filing fee to commence this action. As set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed in part and Plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff submits a 48-page Complaint along with voluminous exhibits, many of which appear to be unrelated to his claims in this action.*fn1 His multiple "Causes of Action" each cite various alleged crimes; complain that the New York City Board of Education ("BOE") and the Teacher's Retirement System ("TRS") misapplied and incorrectly reported various transfers, withdrawals, loans, and payments of payroll and pension funds; and allege that these actions increased his federal tax liability, "depleted" his pension, and "contaminated" his taxes, his pension funds, and his banking accounts. As near as can be determined by the Court in a painstaking reading of his papers, it appears that Plaintiff's underlying concerns are the depletion of his pension funds and an ongoing dispute with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") regarding taxes claimed to be owed for prior tax years. Although the Complaint is difficult to parse, the Court believes that Plaintiff is alleging the following facts and raising the following claims against Defendant.

At some time prior to the initiation of the present action, Plaintiff was employed by the BOE (Plaintiff's Complaint ("Compl.") at 2), and participated in the TRS (Compl. at 4). According to Plaintiff, on January 31, 2002, Plaintiff removed $20,243.59 from his tax deferred annuity account at the TRS. He describes these funds as "prior service time monies." (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly credit these funds to his Tier IV Pension Account, Number 728147. (Id. at 7.) Instead, Plaintiff alleges, these funds and "all of the plaintiff's moneys [were] reported as alleged income" (Id.) and caused all subsequent W-2 Forms and his federal and state tax returns to be fraudulent. (Id. at 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 31, 44.)*fn2

Plaintiff asserts that on June 19, 2003, Plaintiff "served 'notice'" of his intent to retire, by sending "'sworn' retirement papers" effective June 26, 2003. (Id. at 4.) The application included a hand-written notation: "Should the undersigned be denied his total service time of approximat [cut off] 38 years, 4 months and 17 days, this application shall become null and [cut off]. The undersigned then demands to be returned to his position of school pyschol [cut off]." (Plaintiff's Exhibit F, sub-Exhibit A). A letter from the Office of the Principal at Hale A Woodruff Public School 224, addressed to Plaintiff, and dated June 23, 2005 requests Plaintiff to contact the payroll office immediately and indicates that paperwork is enclosed. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, second sub-Exhibit E.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant "denied" Plaintiff's retirement by letter dated July 2, 2003. (Compl. at 4.) Plaintiff did not return to work on September 1, 2003. (Id. at 5.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff alleges that he was retained on the payroll as a school psychologist, and continued to receive electronic payments until June 28, 2005. (Id. at 5, 12.) He received an "Employee Pay Statement," dated June 28, 2005, showing earnings for that period of $5669.39; year-to-date earnings of $11,772.65; and deductions for federal and state withholding taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes. (Id. at 24; Plaintiff's Exhibit A, sub-Exhibit O.) However, Plaintiff also asserts that he did not receive "any 'Employee Pay Statements' for the Jan. 1, 2005 through Jan. 31, 2005 time period." (Compl. at 24.)

Plaintiff suggests that the June 28, 2005 statement is evidence of Defendant's attempt to establish a fraudulent "final average salary." (Id. at 25.) Plaintiff argues that because Defendant fraudulently established his final average salary, he should be accorded a final average salary equal to the "maximum sum in the present contract," and that this amount should serve as the basis for his Tier IV Pension and for calculating compensatory and punitive damages in the present lawsuit. (Id. at 25-26.)

Plaintiff further alleges that by keeping him on salary after he served notice of retirement, Defendants conspired to defraud him of his Tier IV Pension benefits. (Id. at 42.) Plaintiff asserts that any income he received from June 26, 2003 until June 28, 2005 should not have been considered "earned income," and thus should not be subject to federal tax liability. (Id. at 5, 23.) He demands that all funds he received from Defendant "should be defined and declared a 'tax free gift.'" (Id. at 24; see also id. at 7, 8, 13, 15, 20, 22, 24, 27, 28, 33, 47.)

Plaintiff asserts that he currently remains an employee of the BOE and a member of the TRS. (Id. at 24, 26.) Plaintiff alleges that he was not served with any termination papers by the BOE or by the TRS. (Id. at 20, 24, 29.) He argues that his continued employment and receipt of salary from September 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 contradicts the "TRS's apparent assertion that the plaintiff was not a member of TRS and Tier IV during this period of time." (Id. at 19; see also id. at 5, 23, 24.)*fn3

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's alleged failure to compensate him as an employee or retiree is "earned income fraud and/or pension fraud and federal tax withholding fraud." (Id. at 28.) He further alleges that Defendant's denial of that status denies him rights and privileges in violation of the United Federation of Teachers' Contract, the New York State constitution, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Id. at 26, 29.) In particular, he asserts that Defendant's failure to provide him with termination papers violates his constitutional rights. (Id. at 29.)

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant continues to make electronic transfers of pension funds to his checking account without his permission. (Id. at 32.) Plaintiff argues that "all deductions that were electronically transferred from the plaintiff's N.Y.C.B.O.E. to the City of New York Deferred Compensation 401K plan #98998-03 from Jan. 1, 2005 through Jan. 31, 2005 have as their basis and foundation earned income fraud and federal tax withholding fraud." (Id. at 28.) Accordingly, he argues, "[a]ny and all monies removed from this account were 'not' distributions for the Jan. 1, 2005 through Dec. 31, 2005 tax period" and should be declared a "tax free gift" and, in addition, the funds should be replaced by the Defendant as punitive and compensatory damages. (Id. at 28-29.) On the other hand, he states that payments into his Tier I account were not fraudulent. (Id. at 30.)

Plaintiff accuses Defendant of committing "tax fraud," "Banking Fraud," "Federal Deposit Insurance Fraud," and mail fraud by making electronic transfers of pension and payroll funds and by using the United States Postal Service to mail "false and fraudulent" documents including IRS reporting forms, checks alleged to be income, and a letter claiming that several checks had been lost or not received. (Id. at 1, 5, 7, 12-13, 17-18, 21, 31, 32, 33, 35-37, 40.)

Plaintiff also asserts that beginning in April 26, 2002, Defendant "begins another round of similar allegations of proven earned income fraud, tax withholding fraud, state tax withholding fraud, pension fraud, medicare fraud, social security fraud against Rahsaan A. Seabury."*fn4 (Id. at 9-10.) Plaintiff argues that this suggests a "pattern of federal and state tax fraud." ( Id. at 10.) He also asserts that "defendants [sic] actions against Rahsaan Seabury were retribution for the plaintiff filing papers." (Id.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating his Tier I Pension, Number 164307 and his "N.Y.C.E.R.S. pension # 36407" on August 1, 2003, in response to Plaintiff filing a complaint in case number 107348/2003 in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.