Amy Brignall Et Al v. New York State Unified Court System Et. Al

FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 03/08/2022 05:41 PM INDEX NO.
E2022-0241CV
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022
STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF STEUBEN
_____________________________________________
AMY BRIGNALL,
FRAN-MARIE CHERESNOWSKY,
PAUL DIPIERRO, VERIFIED PETITION AND
JAMIE HAWLEY,
COMPLAINT
GERARD KAELIN,
GWEN NANIA,
MEREDITH PRATT,
NYS COURT EMPLOYEES FOR MEDICAL
FREEDOM, INC., Index No.: _________
Petitioners,
v.
NEW YORK STATE

UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION,
HON. LAWRENCE K. MARKS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE,
NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
JUSTIN A. BARRY
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR
NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
NANCY J. BARRY
CHIEF OF OPERATIONS
NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM
Respondents.
_____________________________________________
The above-named Petitioners/Plaintiffs AMY BRIGNALL, FRAN-MARIE
CHERESNOWSKY, PAUL DIPIERRO, JAMIE HAWLEY, GERARD KAELIN, GWEN
NANIA, MEREDITH PRATT and NYS COURT EMPLOYEES FOR MEDICAL FREEDOM,
INC., (“Petitioners”) for their Verified Petition and Complaint against Respondents/Defendants
New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration, Hon. Lawrence K. Marks,
Chief Administrative Judge, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Unified Court
{H3325943.1} 1
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
2410 NORTH FOREST ROAD | SUITE 301 | AMHERST, NEW YORK 14068
Phone: 716.636.7600 | Toll Free: 800.636.5255 | Fax: 716.636.7606 | www.hoganwillig.com
1 of 56
FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 03/08/2022 05:41 PM INDEX NO. E2022-0241CV
System, Justin A. Barry, Chief Administrator, New York State Unified Court System, and Nancy
J. Barry, New York State Unified Court System (“Respondents”), through their undersigned
counsel, hereby allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The founders of this country, as expressed in the United States Constitution, set out the
basic principles of our democratic form of government which have withstood the test of time.
There have been occasional aberrations from those basic precepts, such as the Supreme Court’s
decision in Dred Scott, finding that African Americans could not be deemed citizens, in Korematsu
justifying the use of Japanese internment camps during World War II, and in Buck v. Bell,
justifying forced sterilization of individuals. However, in general, each branch of government, i.e.,
the executive, legislative, and judicial, have generally performed their respective functions as they
are constitutionally empowered to do. With the appearance of COVID-19 in early 2020, the
“separation of powers” among the three branches have been significantly undermined. Legislative
branches have abdicated their duties, while the judicial branches have stepped back, allowing chief
executives and chief administrators to assume control of all governmental functions concerning
the COVID-19 pandemic response. As a result, individual citizens have been deprived of their
constitutional right to make decisions about their own health.
Government at all levels throughout this country, continue to refuse to acknowledge the
now recognized superiority of natural immunity (immunity to an infectious agent caused by
fighting off that infection) compared to vaccine-induced immunity (the immunity obtained through
a vaccine). However, more recently there has been a shift within the medical community, as the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) now expressly acknowledges natural
{H3325943.1} 2
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
2 of 56
immunity and its beneficial function – natural immunity is shown in many studies to be superior
to vaccine induced immunity in both strength and duration.1
In view of the foregoing, it is medically and scientifically senseless to require naturally
immune persons to be vaccinated with the experimental mRNA vaccines, as they already possess
superior, broader immunity than those vaccinated with mRNA vaccines. Non-legislative entities
and administrators, such as the Respondents in this case, should not be allowed to impose useless,
excessive, and unconstitutional policies on citizens in the name of a “pandemic,” especially as the
pandemic is resolving. This is especially true when the vast majority of other states in our country
have made a successful return to normal life. It is not the role of the judiciary branch, here, to
weigh broadly applicable health tradeoffs. As stated in Nat'l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA,
142 S. Ct. 661, 666 (2022), “[i]n our system of government, that is the responsibility of those
chosen by the people through democratic processes.”
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a special proceeding brought under Article 78 of the CPLR and 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983, 1988 seeking injunctive relief for: (i) violations of Petitioners’ rights under the United
States and New York State Constitutions; (ii) challenges to the constitutionality and applicability
of the vaccine mandate for employees promulgated by Respondents; and (iii) reimbursement of
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Petitioners in seeking to protect against the
violation of their rights.
1
“146 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to COVID-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted,”
Elias Alexander, P. (compiling studies) https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-
immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/ (last accessed January 28, 2022).
{H3325943.1} 3
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
3 of 56
2. Respondents, in a disturbing and gross abuse of their power, and without any proper
constitutional, statutory, or common law basis therefor, have mandated thousands of New York
State Unified Court System employees to vaccinate against COVID-19, or lose their jobs.
3. Inherent within the exercise of Respondents’ actions are the false notions that: (i)
the COVID-19 virus has created a state of emergency in New York State; (ii) the COVID-19
vaccines are an effective means of combating the transmission of the COVID-19 virus; and (iii)
that natural immunity is not as effective against the COVID-19 virus as the available COVID-19
vaccines.
4. Petitioners thus bring this lawsuit to assert challenges to the actions taken by
Respondents to force and coerce NYS court employees to become vaccinated from the COVID-
19 virus.
PARTIES
5. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Amy Brignall (“Brignall”) was and is a
resident of the County of Wayne, State of New York.
6. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Fran-Marie Cheresnowsky
(“Cheresnowsky”) was and is a resident of the County of Steuben, State of New York.
7. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Paul DiPierro (“DiPierro”) was and is a
resident of the County of Orange, State of New York.
8. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Jamie Hawley (“Hawley”) was and is a
resident of the County of Steuben, State of New York.
9. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Gerard Kaelin (“Kaelin”) was and is a
resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York.
{H3325943.1} 4
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
4 of 56
10. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Gwen Nania (“Nania”) was and is a resident
of the County of Monroe, State of New York.
11. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Meredith Pratt (“Pratt”) was and is a resident
of the County of Steuben, State of New York.
12. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner NYS Court Employees for Medical
Freedom, Inc. was and is a New York not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York, which represents and is made up of approximately one hundred
(100) New York State Unified Court System employees, many of whom are obligated to comply
with COVID-19 vaccine mandates, each of which are respectively united in interest in this
proceeding. A true and correct copy of the Meeting Minutes of the Board of Directors of Petitioner
NYS Court Employees for Medical Freedom, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
13. By Resolution of the Board of Directors of Petitioner NYS Court Employees for
Medical Freedom, Inc., HoganWillig PLLC was authorized by Board Members Amy Brignall,
Jamie C. Hawley, and Gwen Nania to commence litigation on behalf of the Petitioner entity herein,
as well as on behalf of the approximately one hundred (100) employees represented by the
Petitioner entity. A true and correct copy of the Resolution of the Board of Directors of Petitioner
NYS Court Employees for Medical Freedom, Inc. is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
14. Respondent New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”) is the judicial branch
of the New York state government, established under and pursuant to Article VI, § 1 of the New
York State Constitution with its principal place of business located at 25 Beaver Street, First Floor,
New York, New York 10004.
15. Respondent Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is an administrative
subdivision of the State of New York responsible for supervision and management of the State’s
{H3325943.1} 5
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
5 of 56
trial and appellate court systems, and maintains its headquarters in the Capitol of New York at 4
ESP, Suite 2001, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York, 12223.
16. Respondent Hon. Lawrence K. Marks (“Judge Marks”) is the Chief Administrative
Judge of the Courts of the State of New York and is sued in his official capacity therein, and
maintains a principal place of business at 25 Beaver Street, First Floor, New York, New York
10004.
17. Respondent Justin A. Barry (“Justin Barry”) is the Chief Administrator of the UCS
and is sued in his official capacity therein, and maintains a principal place of business at 25 Beaver
Street, First Floor, New York, New York 10004.
18. Respondent Nancy J. Barry (“Nancy Barry”) is the Chief of Operations for
Respondent UCS and is sued in her official capacity therein, and maintains a principal place of
business at 25 Beaver Street, First Floor, New York, New York 10004.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding under Article 78 of the CPLR, New
York State Constitution Article 6, § 7, and the common law of the State of New York.
20. Steuben County is a proper venue for this proceeding under CPLR §§ 503(a),
506(b), and 7804(b) because: (i) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Petitioners’ claims
occurred in Steuben County; (ii) Petitioners Cheresnowsky, Hawley, and Pratt were employed by
Respondents in Steuben County; and (iii) Petitioners Cheresnowsky, Hawley, and Pratt reside in
Steuben County.
{H3325943.1} 6
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
6 of 56
STATEMENT OF FACTS
COVID-19 Vaccines Origin
21. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared a “public
health emergency of international concern over the global outbreak” of COVID-19.2 Among other
recommendations, WHO called for the accelerated development of “vaccines, therapeutics and
diagnostic.”3 The following day, U.S. Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Secretary, Alex Azar,
declared a national Public Health Emergency (“PHE”) pertaining to the COVID-19 virus,
retroactive to January 27, 2020.4
22. In April 2020, the Trump Administration announced Operation Warp Speed
(“OWS”) – a public/private partnership to develop and distribute a vaccine for COVID-19 by the
end of 2020 or early 2021.5
23. Americans across the political and medical spectrums have, in good faith,
challenged the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.
24. The evidence of severe and deadly toxicities of the vaccines continues to grow. The
CDC’s own Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), as of February 4, 2022, reports
25,566 deaths from COVID-19 vaccines, as well as 1,103,893 Covid-19 vaccine adverse events.6
25. Three military doctors in the Department of Defense (DOD), citing data in the
Department’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter
2
Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee
regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)World Health Organization,
(https://www.who.int/news/item/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-
regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov))
3
Id.
4
See Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists
(https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/phe/Pages/2019-nCoV.aspx)
5
See “Trump’s Administration Aims to Rush Coronavirus Vaccines”
(https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-29/trump-s-operation-warp-speed-aims-to-rush-coronavirus-
vaccine) (last read, November 10, 2021)
6
CDC WONDER Online Database (wonder.cdc.gov)
{H3325943.1} 7
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
7 of 56
Chambers, and Theresa Long testified in a Congressional Hearing that there has been a 300%
increase in DMED codes registered for miscarriages in the military in 2021 over the five-year
average.
26. There was an almost 300% increase in cancer diagnoses, a 1,000% increase in
diagnosis codes for neurological disorders, a 269% increase in myocardial infarction (heart
attacks), a 471% increase in female infertility, and a 467% increase in pulmonary emboli. 7
27. Gill, et al, in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, reported two (2)
autopsy proven deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines due to myocarditis in teenage boys in the
State of Connecticut alone.8 Connecticut’s population constitutes just over one percent (1%) of the
entire US population. Anecdotal reports of similar deaths have become all too common
nationwide.
28. Moreover, many persons, including the Petitioners, chose not to get vaccinated due
to the unsafe accelerated timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine development.
29. While a typical vaccine development timeline usually takes five (5) to ten (10)
years, the development of each of the COVID-19 vaccines took just over one (1) year.9
30. The SARS CoV-2 virus is rapidly evolving into a less deadly virus. This is exactly
what is expected from an evolutionary standpoint. As the virulence of the virus weakens, any
arguments in favor of mandated vaccination weaken concurrently.
31. A study by the CDC compared the fatality rate of Omicron cases in Southern
California, around the time both Omicron and Delta COVID-19 variants were present in that
7
Senator Ron Johnson. COVID-19: A Second Opinion. January 26, 2022. rumble.com.
8
James R. Gill, MD; Randy Tashjian, MD; Emily Duncanson, MD, Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac
Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose, Arch Pathol Lab Med (2022).
9
See “Vaccine Research & Development,” Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Coronavirus
Resource Center.
{H3325943.1} 8
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
8 of 56
population (i.e., before Omicron “took over”). The study showed that the fatality rate of Omicron
was less than one tenth that of Delta.10 Similar findings have been made in studies in South
Africa, where the Omicron variant likely originated. The fact is COVID-19 is getting weaker.
32. Of the total deaths in the United States reported of individuals who died with
COVID-19, approximately eighty percent (80%) are of those aged sixty-five (65) or older. Of those
deaths, the approximate number of comorbidities per individual was 3.8. That is, for every
COVID-19 death, the average person suffered from approximately four (4) pre-existing significant
health problems. Thus, most of these individuals (approximately 75%) did not die from COVID-
19, but with COVID-19.
33. Of the total deaths reported in the United States, approximately ninety-four (94%)
of individuals are aged fifty (50) or older, with an average number of 3.8 comorbidities. That is,
only six percent (6%) of the total COVID-19 deaths in the United States are of individuals under
the age of fifty (50) (approximately 43,000); and for those under the age of forty (40), that
percentage is two percent (2%), or approximately 16,000 deaths.
34. The process for developing a vaccine normally takes place in several phases, over
a period of years.11
35. In December 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
granted an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for two (2) of the COVID-19 vaccines: one
manufactured and sold by Pfizer-BioNTech and the other manufactured and sold by Moderna.12
10
Lewnard JA. Clinical outcomes among patients infected with Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant in
southern California. medRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.11.22269045;
11
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/help/vaers.html
12
See “FDA Takes Key Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for First
COVID-19 Vaccine,” Food and Drug Administration Press Release (last visited January 28, 2022); “FDA Takes
Additional Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for Second COVID-19
Vaccine,” Food and Drug Administration Press Release.
{H3325943.1} 9
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
9 of 56
36. Each of the vaccines utilize a particular form of mRNA technology that has never
previously been used in a vaccine, whether under an EUA or a full FDA license.
37. In February 2021, the FDA thereafter granted an EUA for a third, single-dose
vaccine sold by Johnson & Johnson, which is a novel, viral vector vaccine platform.13
38. The EUA applications for these three (3) vaccines were based largely upon data
which supports that each of these vaccines may reduce certain symptoms of COVID-19; however,
the FDA’s EUAs have made it abundantly clear that there is no evidence that the COVID-19
vaccines can prevent recipients from becoming infected with, and transmitting, the coronavirus.
39. As the FDA explained in its Briefing Documents for each of the vaccines, at the
time of EUA approval, the data was “not available to make a determination about how long the
vaccine[s] will provide protection, nor [was] there evidence that the vaccine prevents [the]
transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19] from person to person.”
40. In fact, the FDA’s Briefing Documents, supporting the grant of an EUA, expressly
set forth the following as being unknown: (i) effectiveness in certain populations at high risk of
severe COVID-19; (ii) effectiveness in individuals previously infected; (iii) effectiveness against
asymptomatic infection; (iv) effectiveness against the long-term effects of COVID-19; (v)
effectiveness against mortality; and (vi) effectiveness against transmission of COVID-19.14
41. The FDA’s Briefing Documents also make clear that there is much that remains
unknown about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, including, but not limited to: (i) any adverse
13
“FDA Takes Additional Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for
Third COVID-19 Vaccine,” Food and Drug Administration Press Release.
14
“FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” available online at
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download; “FDA Briefing Document Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine,” available
online at https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download; “FDA Briefing Document Janssen Ad26.COV2S Vaccine for
the Prevention of COVID-19,” available online at https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download.
{H3325943.1} 10
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
10 of 56
reactions that are very uncommon; (ii) any adverse reactions that require longer follow-up to be
detected; and (iii) whether the vaccines may or will cause “vaccine-enhanced disease.” Id.
42. The FDA’s EUA Authorization Letters concluded that each vaccine was “[a]n
investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication,” and required “[a]ll promotional material
related to the COVID-19 [v]accine clearly and conspicuously [] [to] state that this product has not
been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use [only].”15
43. On August 23, 2021, the FDA granted full approval to Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-
19 vaccine, licensed under the name “COMIRNATY,” for people ages sixteen (16) and older.16
44. On January 31, 2022, the FDA granted full approval to Moderna’s COVID-19
17
vaccine, licensed under the name “SPIKEVAX” for people ages eighteen (18) and older.
45. However, as of the date of this filing, the FDA has not yet granted full approval for
the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, and perhaps more significantly, there is no
FDA-approved vaccine for children under the age of sixteen (16).
46. The American public, desperate for a return to normalcy following over two years
of misinformation, disinformation and confusion are being told in a carefully orchestrated public
messaging campaign that the virus is deadly, and vaccines are “safe and effective”. 18
47. Dissenting medical opinion is often censored. Private sector employers and all
levels of government are using coercion to force compliance with the vaccines. Many persons,
including numerous first responders and health care personnel, are being terminated from
15
See https://www.fda.gov/media/144412/download; https://www.fda.gov/media/144636/download; and
https://www.fda.gov/media/146303/download (emphasis added).
16
FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine, Press Release, https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-
announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
17
Griffin, Riley “Moderna’s Covid Vaccine Receives Full Approval from U.S. FDA” Bloomberg January 31,
2022, (https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-s-covid-vaccine-receives-full-approval-from-u-s-fda/ar-
AATkRDr?ocid=entnewsntp )
18
See e.g. Young, Holly “Poor, biased reporting of daily covid death statistics without perspective creates
fear” thembj (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n640) (last read, November 10, 2021)
{H3325943.1} 11
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
11 of 56
employment, prohibited from the grounds of educational institutions, and barred from participating
in sporting activities, entertainment, social functions, and cultural events if unvaccinated. 19
48. Furthermore, as the global community has come to learn, and as finally admitted
by the CDC, even those individuals who are vaccinated against COVID-19 can thereafter become
infected with the virus, including its Omicron variant.20
49. The CDC reported that “new scientific data” indicated that vaccinated people who
experienced breakthrough infections carried similar viral loads to the unvaccinated (but not
naturally immune), leading the CDC to infer that vaccinated people transmit the virus at
concerning levels.21 Anthony S. Fauci, President Biden’s chief medical adviser, explained: “I think
the implications [of the data] are that people who are vaccinated, even when they’re asymptomatic,
can transmit the virus, which is the scientific foundation of why this recommendation is being
made.”22 Fauci noted there is not yet clinical data on what the high viral loads mean in terms of
disease transmission. “You can make a reasonable assumption that vaccinated people can transmit
the virus just like unvaccinated people can,” Fauci said.23
50. Furthermore, of more recent concern are “breakthrough infections,” i.e., infections
of persons who have been vaccinated but still become infected and ill with the COVID-19 virus.
51. Although vaccinated individuals suffering from a breakthrough infection are
perhaps less likely to become severely ill than an unvaccinated person, a new study shows that
19
See, e.g., Abbasi, Kamran “COVID-19: Social murder, they wrote-elected, unaccountable, and unrepentant,”
THE BMJ (https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n314).
20
See, e.g., “The Possibility of COVID-19 after Vaccination: Breakthrough Infections,” United States Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
21
Archenback, Joel “CDC reversal on indoor masking prompts experts to ask, ‘Where’s the data?’” Washington Post
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/breakthrough-infections-cdc-data/2021/07/28/dcaaa6b2-efce-11eb-a452-
4da5fe48582d_story.html) (last read, November 11, 2021)
22
Id.
23
Id.
{H3325943.1} 12
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
12 of 56
vaccinated individuals can carry similar amounts of virus and could potentially spread the virus to
other people.24
52. The ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing infections is in stark
contrast to vaccines for other pathogens. For example, the Measles vaccine within the combined
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine almost always provides sterilizing immunity
against measles to the person vaccinated, in other words, it prevents the patient from being infected
with measles.25
53. This highest grade, “sterilizing” immunity is retained for multiple decades and
often for life. Sterilizing immunity stands in stark contrast to the much lower grade and more
temporary immunity that the COVID-19 vaccines provide.
54. A high-quality meta-analysis of data from sixty-eight (68) countries and over
twenty-nine hundred (2,900) U.S. counties, performed by researchers at the Harvard School of
Public Health determined that increases in COVID-19 infection are unrelated to levels of
vaccination. 26
55. In short, the Harvard-published meta-analysis definitively shows that vaccination
does not stop COVID-19 infection. Therefore, the Respondents’ continuous perpetuation of the
falsehood that the vaccines prevent COVID-19 infections is inconsistent with basic immunology
and virology principles, as well as empirical data.
24
See Archaya, Charlotte, “No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated,
Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant” medRxiv
(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264262v1).
25
“Measles Vaccination and Infection: Questions and Misconceptions” American Society for Microbiology,
(https://asm.org/Articles/2019/July/Measles-Vaccination-and-Infection-Questions-and-Mi).
26
Subramanian, S.V “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and
2947 counties in the United States” SpringerLink (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10654-021-00808-
7).
{H3325943.1} 13
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
13 of 56
56. Coupled with evidence that the subject vaccines do not prevent transmission of the
COVID-19 virus, due to a lack of studies that conclusively establish the absence of any long-term
side effects associated with the receipt of the COVID-19 vaccines, many workers – including the
Petitioners – have elected to abstain from immediate vaccination.
Natural Immunity
57. As noted above, it is an indisputable medical fact that numerous UCS employees
have developed natural immunity against COVID-19 infection by way of having been infected and
having fully recovered from the COVID-19 virus.
58. With increased natural immunity in the population due to prior infection, as well as
vaccine-induced immunity as more people are vaccinated (especially in high-risk groups), two
important and very positive developments have occurred. First, more and more COVID-19 cases
are mild or even asymptomatic than previously. Second, the case fatality rate of COVID-19 disease
falls lower and lower, approaching influenza-type levels.
59. As the population progresses towards greater levels of immunity, the need for and
effectiveness of vaccine mandates naturally decreases. The burden should fall on those imposing
such mandates on the Petitioners to demonstrate that such mandates are necessary in the current
milieu. The burden should not shift to the employees to submit to baseless mandates, purely in
service of what is an employer’s futile and harmful pursuit of “zero COVID.”
60. Natural immunity – the immunity derived by having had COVID-19 disease, which
is now EXTREMELY common – is superior in both quality and duration to vaccine-induced
immunity. Another CDC study determined that, by October 2021, “persons who survived a
{H3325943.1} 14
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
14 of 56
previous [COVID-19] infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.”27
In other words, natural immunity was shown to be MORE protective against COVID-19 than
vaccine-induced immunity – meaning a naturally immune person is less of a potential threat of
transmission than a vaccinated person.
61. Similar findings have been determined in numerous studies performed worldwide.
In fact, the Brownstone Institute has compiled 150 studies that confirm the superiority of natural
immunity to vaccine-induced immunity for prevention of COVID-19. 28
62. Natural immunity is not significantly enhanced by added vaccination, and this
practice may in fact be dangerous. It cannot be overstressed that mandated vaccination of the
naturally immune has NO proven legitimate medical or scientific basis.
63. This viewpoint, which earlier in the pandemic was often discounted by
establishment medicine sources as “misinformation,” is now becoming increasingly accepted. The
preeminent medical journal “The Lancet” published an article on February 7, 2022, entitled
“Health-care workers recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should be exempt from
mandatory vaccination edicts.” 29
64. In the article, the author noted that individuals with natural immunity are ten (10)
times less likely to get reinfected with COVID-19 than those vaccinated alone, that they are less
likely than vaccinated patients to transmit the virus, and that they possess a more comprehensive
form of immunity than vaccinated individuals.
27
León TM, Dorabawila V, Nelson L, et al. COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19
Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:125–131. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e1.
28
Alexander, Paul. 150 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented,
Linked, and Quoted, October 17, 2021.
29
McGonagle DG. Health-care workers recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should be exempt
from mandatory vaccination edicts. Lancet Rheumatol 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00038-8
{H3325943.1} 15
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
15 of 56
65. An increasing number of countries, states, and industries are correctly identifying
natural immunity to COVID-19 as functionally equivalent to vaccination with regard to
vaccination requirements. This is the prevailing trend, and rightly so.
66. An Israeli study of 6.4 million individuals clearly demonstrated that naturally
acquired COVID-19 convalescence immunity was at least equivalent to vaccine-acquired
immunity in preventing COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality.30
67. The study shows that 187,549 unvaccinated COVID-19 individuals who tested
positive between June 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 and were observed through March 20, 2021,
fared at least as well as those vaccinated. The study revealed that 894 (0.48%) had been re-infected;
38 (0.02%) had been hospitalized, 16 [0.008%] were hospitalized with severe disease, and only
one (1) individual died. 31
68. The authors of the aforementioned Israeli Study concluded unequivocally that:
“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals.” 32
69. The Cleveland Clinic confirmed the findings of the Israeli Study in a similar study
of their own employees.33 Specifically, the Cleveland Clinic Study found zero (0) COVID-19 re-
infections during a five (5) month follow-up of 1,359 infected, but unvaccinated employees, and
concluded that such persons were “unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.”34
70. Further, in a study published by the CDC, California and New York officials have
reported that people who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected
30
Yair Goldberg, et al., Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine
protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, medRxiv (Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2
infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel |
medRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1).
31
Id. at 173.
32
Id. at 174.
33
Nabin K. Shrestha et al., Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, medRxiv
(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2 ).
34
Id.
{H3325943.1} 16
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
16 of 56
against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, thereby demonstrating that natural
immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against COVID-19.35
71. It is noteworthy that demonstration of serological immunity with antibody testing
is a common and universally accepted way to meet vaccine requirements in other settings. For
example, in patients wishing to attend colleges that require proof of measles/mumps/rubella
immunity, either written documentation of prior vaccination OR a positive blood test for antibodies
universally suffices – as it should with COVID-19, as well.
72. The existing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are becoming increasingly ineffective
and outdated as the virus continues to mutate into new strains. Again, this is exactly what is to be
expected from an evolutionary standpoint. In fact, the mRNA vaccines act as strong drivers of
evolution of the virus, specifically toward making the virus more and more resistant to any
immunity those vaccines provide (see, Declaration of Clayton J. Baker, M.D. and Affidavit of
Paulette Niewczyk, MPH, Ph.D).
73. When a vaccinated person contracts COVID-19, their immune system is more
effective at eliminating those individual virus particles that are most like the virus strain rampant
in 2020, when the vaccines were developed. However, many mutated virus particles are also
present which the vaccine-prompted immune system is less effective against. These newer, mutant
versions of the virus survive, reproduce, and eventually become the dominant version – a new
version that is less susceptible to vaccine-induced immunity (see, Declaration of Clayton J. Baker,
M.D. and Affidavit of Paulette Niewczyk, MPH, Ph.D).
35
Leon, Tomas, COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous
COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021, CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm (last read, January 24, 2022)
{H3325943.1} 17
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
17 of 56
74. As this process is repeated over and over, in vaccinated, but infected individuals,
one can see how the imperfect vaccine drives the evolutionary process towards newer strains (e.g.,
Omicron), which are increasingly vaccine resistant. This is exactly what is happening, gradually
rendering the vaccines ineffective and outdated (see, Declaration of Clayton J. Baker, M.D. and
Affidavit of Paulette Niewczyk, MPH, Ph.D).
75. Despite the foregoing, the Vaccination Mandate promulgated by Respondents does
not include an exemption from the vaccination requirement for those with natural immunity to
COVID-19.
76. The risks of the COVID-19 vaccine (whether known or unknown) – together with
the indisputable medical facts that many individuals who have already had COVID-19 have at
least equally strong protection from the virus through natural immunity – clearly renders the UCS
Vaccine Mandate arbitrary, irrational, unnecessary and an abuse of the Respondents’ discretion.
New York State Guidance on

COVID-19 Vaccination
77. On June 24, 2021, former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo (“Governor Cuomo”)
permitted the State Disaster Emergency with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic to expire, which
he had initially declared on March 7, 2020, and extended by Executive Order.
78. If any statutory basis existed for the issuance of a vaccination requirement by the
State of New York, it would have been Chapter 23 of the Laws of 2020 (“Chapter 23”) which
authorized the Governor of New York to issue directives related to controlling the spread of
COVID-19. Chapter 23 was repealed by Chapter 71 of the Laws of 2021 (“Chapter 71”).
{H3325943.1} 18
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
18 of 56
79. However, while Chapter 71 did continue some of the powers delegated to the
Governor by Chapter 23, it did so only during a declared State Disaster Emergency which, as
noted, expired on June 23, 2021.
80. Despite the expiration of the COVID-19 Disaster Emergency in New York, on July
28, 2021, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, announced his intention to implement a
mandatory vaccine regime in the State of New York for all state employees, despite no such
mandate having been issued by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”), or President Biden.
81. On July 28, 2021, the UCS issued a News Advisory stating that “following new
state guidance”, the UCS will be implementing a policy requiring unvaccinated UCS employees
to undergo weekly testing and “strongly encouraging” judges and court employees to get
vaccinated. A copy of the UCS News Advisory dated July 28, 2021 is attached hereto as Exhibit
C.
82. On August 24, 2021, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo resigned from his position as
the Governor of the State of New York, and Governor Kathleen C. Hochul assumed the position
of Governor.
83. To date, Governor Hochul has not issued any Executive Order(s) requiring
individuals in New York to become vaccinated against COVID-19.
84. On September 3, 2021, the New York State Governor’s Office of Employee
Relations (hereinafter, “GOER”) published a memorandum, declaring a policy, in part, requiring
the vaccination or weekly testing for New York State Employees (hereinafter, the “GOER Vaccine
Policy”). A copy of the GOER Vaccine Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
85. The GOER Vaccine Policy states, in relevant part:
{H3325943.1} 19
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
19 of 56
Mandatory Vaccination Requirement for State Health and Direct Care

Facilities
Effective September 27, 2021, pursuant to emergency regulations issued by

DOH specific to State-operated health facilities, congregate living facilities,
and other identified covered entities, all employees of covered entities who
have not been granted a medical exemption must have received at least their
first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Agencies covered by these regulations
shall inform their employees that the penalty for failure to be vaccinated has
yet to be determined. Affected agencies shall await further guidance on
application of penalties for employees who do not comply with this
requirement.
Vaccination or Testing Requirement for Other State Offices and Facilities
For all other state executive agency employees who are not covered by the
DOH emergency regulations referenced above, the previously announced
vaccination or weekly testing requirement is now scheduled to take effect
on October 12, 2021. State agencies will receive further guidance on
implementation of this protocol soon.
(emphasis added) see Exhibit D, p. 2.
86. The GOER Vaccine Policy effectively required New York State agencies to either:
(i) adopt a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for all employees, or (ii) adopt a policy
requiring employees to either vaccinate against COVID-19 or be subject to weekly testing.
87. The GOER Vaccine Policy does not at this time provide an exemption to the
vaccination requirement for New York State employees who were previously infected with
COVID-19 and who have, as a result, acquired natural immunity.
The Chief Administrator’s Authority
88. In his role as Chief Administrative Judge, Judge Marks directs New York’s OCA,
and is responsible for overseeing the operation and administration of New York’s courts.
89. Section 28 of Article VI of the New York State Constitution states:
a. The chief judge of the court of appeals shall be the chief judge of the State
of New York and shall be the chief judicial officer of the unified court
{H3325943.1} 20
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
20 of 56
system. There shall be an administrative board of the courts which shall

consist of the chief judge of the court of appeals as chairperson and the
presiding justice of the appellate division of the supreme court of each
judicial department. The chief judge shall, with the advice and consent of
the administrative board of the courts, appoint a chief administrator of the
courts who shall serve at the pleasure of the chief judge.
b. The chief administrator, on behalf of the chief judge, shall supervise

the administration and operation of the unified court system. In the
exercise of such responsibility, the chief administrator of the courts shall
have such powers and duties as may be delegated to him or her by the chief
judge and such additional powers and duties as may be provided by law.
c. The chief judge, after consultation with the administrative board, shall
establish standards and administrative policies for general application
throughout the state, which shall be submitted by the chief judge to the court
of appeals, together with the recommendations, if any, of the administrative
board. Such standards and administrative policies shall be promulgated after
approval by the court of appeals.
(emphasis added).
90. Further, under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 80.1:
(b) In the exercise of this delegated responsibility and in accordance with the
standards and administrative policies established, approved and promulgated
pursuant to article VI, section 28(c) of the Constitution, the Chief Administrator
shall:
(15) exercise all powers and perform all duties on behalf of the unified court system
as a public employer, pursuant to article 14 of the Civil Service Law (Taylor Law),
as the chief executive officer pursuant to that article;
91. There is no authority permitting the Chief Administrative Judge to issue a mandate
requiring all Court employees in New York State to become vaccinated for the COVID-19 virus.
92. The instant case is similar to Natl. Fed’n of Ind. Bus. v DOL, OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661,
664 [2022]. There, neither OSHA, nor Congress, had ever imposed such a mandate and indeed,
although Congress has passed significant legislation addressing the coronavirus pandemic, it has
{H3325943.1} 21
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
21 of 56
declined to enact any legal measures similar to what OSHA promulgated. Similarly, never before
has the Chief Administrative Judge imposed such a mandate.
93. Further, like in OSHA, Justice Marks’ “indiscriminate approach” and “broad
assertions of administrative power demands unmistakable legislative support” Id.
UCS Vaccine Mandate
94. Lacking the proper authority, Respondents implemented a policy pursuant to which
its employees were required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (the “Vaccine Mandate”). An
employee’s failure to be vaccinated, or to otherwise establish and obtain a valid medical exemption
from the Vaccine Mandate on or before September 27, 2021, would result in the termination of
their employment with UCS.
95. Upon information and belief, relying on New York State’s guidelines as an
authoritative basis, the UCS adopted their own COVID-19 Vaccination Mandate.
96. Upon information and belief, at the direction of Judge Marks, on September 10,
2021, Nancy Barry and Justin Barry issued a memorandum regarding the mandatory vaccination
requirement (“the Vaccine Mandate”) to all non-judicial personnel. A copy of the UCS
memorandum is attached as Exhibit E.
97. As set forth in the memorandum:
[T]he Unified Court System will require all judges and non-judicial
personnel to be vaccinated by September 27, 2021, unless otherwise
approved for an exemption due to medical reasons or sincerely held
religious beliefs []
98. The austere penalty for UCS employees’ non-compliance with the Vaccine
Mandate is, in effect, termination. As stated in the Vaccine Mandate:
Employees who fail to comply with the provisions of this Policy are
prohibited from reporting to work and may be considered absent without
authorization for which approval to charge accruals may be denied, until
{H3325943.1} 22
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
22 of 56
they have taken steps to remedy their non-compliance. Continued failure to

comply may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
99. The Vaccine Mandate does not at this time permit UCS employees to wear face-
coverings as an alternative to vaccination.
100. Furthermore, the Vaccine Mandate does not at this time provide an exemption to
the vaccination requirement for UCS employees who were previously infected with COVID-19
and who have, as a result, acquired natural immunity.
101. The Vaccine Mandate fails to acknowledge, that “COVID–19 can and does spread
. . . everywhere . . . people gather [and] [t]hat kind of universal risk is no different from the day-
to-day dangers . . .” Id. at 665.
102. Upon information and belief, Respondents developed a policy and/or custom of
denying medical accommodation requests that are grounded upon natural immunity.
103. Upon information and belief, Nancy Barry and Justin Barry had a duty to enforce
the Vaccine Mandate as promulgated by Judge Marks.
104. Upon information and belief, Nancy Barry and Justin Barry further demonstrated
willingness to exercise their duty by ordering the termination of unvaccinated UCS employees.
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Amy Brignall
105. Petitioner Brignall was employed by the New York State Unified Court System
(“UCS”) as a Court Clerk. In that capacity, Petitioner Brignall was required to comply with the
UCS Vaccine Mandate.
106. Petitioner Brignall elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-
19 on the basis of natural immunity and her religious beliefs.
107. On or around September 27, 2021, Petitioner Brignall submitted a religious
accommodation request to the UCS.

{H3325943.1} 23
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
23 of 56
108. In her accommodation request, Petitioner Brignall informed Respondents of her
belief that God would not force a vaccine with unknown long-term consequences upon His
congregation, which includes Petitioner Brignall.
109. On or around October 7, 2021, Petitioner Brignall, via a PCR test, was determined
COVID-19 – positive. Accordingly, by testing positive for the virus and overcoming the same,
Petitioner Brignall had developed natural immunity to COVID-19.
110. Subsequently, on or around October 18, 2021, Petitioner Brignall submitted a
medical accommodation request to the Vaccine Mandate on the basis of her natural immunity.
111. On or around November 23, 2021, Petitioner Brignall was informed that the UCS
denied her medical accommodation request.
112. On or around January 7, 2022, Petitioner Brignall was informed that the UCS
denied her religious accommodation request.
113. Upon the denial of Petitioner Brignall’s accommodation requests, on or around
January 19, 2022, Petitioner Brignall was deemed “unfit for duty,” and prohibited from working
as a Court Clerk.
114. To date, Petitioner Brignall remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
vaccination is contraindicative to her natural immunity and religious beliefs.
115. True and correct copies of Petitioner Brignall’s positive antibody test results,
request for religious accommodation, request for medical accommodation, subsequent denial letter
from the UCS and associated documentation are attached hereto as Exhibit F.
{H3325943.1} 24
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
24 of 56
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Fran-Marie Cheresnowsky
116. Petitioner Cheresnowsky was employed by the New York State Unified Court
System (“UCS”) as a Court Assistant. In that capacity, Petitioner Fran-Marie Cheresnowsky was
required to comply with the UCS Vaccine Mandate.
117. In or around November 2021, Petitioner Cheresnowsky became infected with the
COVID-19 virus and subsequently recovered from the same.
118. By way of being infected with the COVID-19 virus and recovering from it,
Petitioner Cheresnowsky had acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
119. Petitioner Cheresnowsky elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against
COVID-19 on the basis of natural immunity and her religious beliefs.
120. On or around October 18, 2021, Petitioner Cheresnowsky submitted a religious
accommodation request in which she informed Respondents of her belief that the COVID-19 virus
was created by God, and that she, as a believer in God, will be protected from the virus. Petitioner
Fran-Marie Cheresnowsky further explained that the COVID-19 vaccine interferes with her
religious beliefs, as subjecting her to the vaccine would be tantamount to declaring that she no
longer believes in God’s protection.
121. On or around January 3, 2022, Petitioner Cheresnowsky was informed that the UCS
122. The Vaccine Mandate as promulgated at the direction of Judge Marks did not
provide for an exemption and/or medical accommodation due to a prior infection of COVID-19
and the natural immunity so acquired.
{H3325943.1} 25
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
25 of 56
123. In fact, various court employees, such as Petitioner Brignall, submitted medical
accommodation requests on the basis of their natural immunity and were denied an exemption on
that request.
124. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner
Cheresnowsky, for a similar exemption on the basis of natural immunity would, upon information
and belief, be met with the same denial.
125. Upon the denial of Petitioner Cheresnowsky’s accommodation requests, on or
around January 14, 2022, Petitioner Cheresnowsky was deemed “unfit for duty” and prohibited
from working as a Court Assistant.
126. To date, Petitioner Cheresnowsky remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
vaccination is against her religious beliefs.
127. True and correct copies of Petitioner Cheresnowsky’s positive PCR test, request for
religious accommodation and subsequent denial letter from the UCS are attached hereto as Exhibit
G.
Facts Pertaining to Paul DiPierro
128. Petitioner Paul DiPierro was employed by the New York State Unified Court
System (“UCS”) as a Senior Court Officer. In that capacity, Petitioner was required to comply
with the UCS Vaccine Mandate.
129. Petitioner DiPierro was infected with the COVID-19 virus and subsequently
recovered from the same, as demonstrated by a positive COVID-19 antibody test.
Petitioner DiPierro has acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
{H3325943.1} 26
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
26 of 56
131. Petitioner DiPierro elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-
19 on the basis of natural immunity and his religious beliefs.
132. On or around September 23, 2021, Petitioner DiPierro submitted a religious
accommodation request in which he explained that his sincerely held religious beliefs prevent him
from getting vaccinated from COVID-19.
133. On or November 9, 2021, Petitioner DiPierro was informed that the UCS denied
his religious accommodation request.
that request.
136. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner
DiPierro, for a similar exemption on the basis of natural immunity would, upon information and
belief, be met with the same denial.
137. In fact, Petitioner DiPierro emailed Justice Janet DiFiore, Chief Judge of the Court
of Appeals and of the State of New York, requesting that the UCS consider his natural immunity,
which was confirmed by a positive antibody test, and thus, exempt him from the Vaccine Mandate.
This correspondence went unanswered.
138. Upon the denial of Petitioner DiPierro’s accommodation request, on or around
November 24, 2021, Petitioner DiPierro was deemed “unfit for duty” and prohibited from working
as a Senior Court Officer.
{H3325943.1} 27
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
27 of 56
139. To date, Petitioner DiPierro remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
vaccination is against his religious beliefs, and he has naturally acquired immunity.
140. True and correct copies of Petitioner DiPierro’s positive antibody test results,
request for religious accommodation, subsequent denial letter from the UCS, email to the Chief
Judge and associated documentation are attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Jamie Hawley
141. Petitioner Jamie Hawley was employed by the New York State Unified Court
System (“UCS”) as a Court Reporter. In that capacity, Petitioner was required to comply with the
142. Petitioner Hawley was infected with the COVID-19 virus and subsequently
recovered from the same.
Petitioner Hawley has acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
144. Petitioner Hawley elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-
19 on the basis of on natural immunity and her religious beliefs.
145. On or around September 27, 2021, Petitioner Hawley submitted a religious
accommodation request in which she explained that her sincerely held religious beliefs prevent her
146. On or November 9, 2021, Petitioner Hawley was informed that the UCS denied her
religious accommodation request.
{H3325943.1} 28
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
28 of 56
that request.
149. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner Hawley,
for a similar exemption on the basis of natural immunity would, upon information and belief, be
met with the same denial.
150. On or around November 22, 2021, Petitioner Hawley submitted an amended
religious accommodation request in which she explained that her religious beliefs prohibiting
abortion conflict with the Vaccine Mandate, because COVID-19 vaccines were developed and/or
tested using cell lines from aborted cells.
151. Upon the denial of Petitioner Hawley’s accommodation requests, on or around
December 9, 2021, Petitioner Hawley was deemed “unfit for duty” and prohibited from working
as a Court Reporter.
152. To date, Petitioner Hawley remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
153. True and correct copies of Petitioner Hawley’s positive COVID-19 test result,
request for religious accommodation, amended request for religious accommodation and
subsequent denial letters from the UCS and associated documentation are attached hereto as
Exhibit I.
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Gerard Kaelin
154. Petitioner Kaelin was employed by the New York State Unified Court System
(“UCS”) as a Senior Court Officer. In that capacity, Petitioner was required to comply with the
{H3325943.1} 29
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
29 of 56
155. Petitioner Kaelin was infected with the COVID-19 virus and subsequently
recovered from the same, as demonstrated by a positive COVID-19 antibody test.
156. Upon information and belief, by way of being infected with the COVID-19 virus
and recovering from it, Petitioner Kaelin has acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
157. Petitioner Kaelin elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-
19 on the basis of natural immunity and his religious beliefs.
158. On or around September 22, 2021, Petitioner Kaelin submitted a religious
accommodation request in which he explained that his sincerely held religious beliefs prevent him
159. On or around January 3, 2022, Petitioner Kaelin was informed that the UCS denied
his religious accommodation request.
that request.
162. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner Kaelin,
163. To date, Petitioner Kaelin remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
vaccination is against his religious beliefs.
{H3325943.1} 30
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
30 of 56
164. True and correct copies of Petitioner Kaelin’s positive COVID-19 and antibody test
results, request for religious accommodation and subsequent denial letter from the UCS are
attached hereto as Exhibit J.
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Gwen Nania
165. Petitioner Nania was employed by the New York State Unified Court System
(“UCS”) as Secretary to State Supreme Court Justice Victoria Argento. In that capacity, Petitioner
was required to comply with the UCS Vaccine Mandate.
166. In or around May 2021, Petitioner Nania became infected with the COVID-19 virus
and subsequently recovered from the same.
Petitioner Nanina has acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
168. Petitioner Nania elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-19
on the basis of natural immunity and her religious beliefs.
169. On or around September 24, 2021, Petitioner Nania submitted a religious
170. In particular, Petitioner Nania stated that she believes that her body is a temple of
God and that the presence of human cells and debris in the COVID-19 vaccine prevents her from
vaccination. Petitioner Nania further explained that she believes that the COVID-19 vaccines are
assuming the position of God and that she will not partake in anything that would alter her God-
created genes.
{H3325943.1} 31
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
31 of 56
171. Petitioner Nania supplemented her religious accommodation request with a letter
from Rob Kellogg, Senior Pastor at Calvary Chapel Rochester and a letter from J.D. Farag, Senior
Pastor at Calvary Chapel Kaneohe, which affirm the sincerity of her religious beliefs.
172. On or around November 22, 2021, Petitioner Nania submitted additional
information to supplement her religious accommodation request in which she stressed the sincerity
of the conflict between her religious beliefs and the Vaccine Mandate.
173. On or around December 23, 2021, Petitioner Nania was informed that the UCS
that request.
176. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner Nania,
177. On or around January 3, 2022, Petitioner Nania was deemed “unfit for duty” and
prohibited from working as Secretary to Supreme Court Justice Victoria Argento. On February 15,
2022, Petitioner Nania was informed by Justice Argento that Petitioner Nania’s position was
terminated.
178. To date, Petitioner Nania remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
{H3325943.1} 32
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
32 of 56
179. True and correct copies of Petitioner Nania’s positive COVID-19 test, request for
religious accommodation, supplemental request for religious accommodation and subsequent
denial letter from the UCS are attached hereto as Exhibit K.
Facts Pertaining to Petitioner Meredith Pratt
180. Petitioner Pratt was employed by the New York State Unified Court System
(“UCS”) as a senior court office assistant/clerical assistant. In that capacity, Petitioner was required
to comply with the UCS Vaccine Mandate.
181. In or around October 2021, Petitioner Pratt became infected with the COVID-19
virus and subsequently recovered from the same.
Petitioner Pratt had acquired natural immunity from COVID-19.
183. Petitioner Pratt elected to abstain from immediate vaccination against COVID-19
on the basis of natural immunity and her religious beliefs.
184. On or around October 29, 2021, Petitioner Pratt submitted a religious
185. On or around November 21, 2021, Petitioner Pratt was informed that the UCS
{H3325943.1} 33
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
33 of 56
that request.
188. Thus, further requests by any of the Petitioners herein, including Petitioner Pratt,
189. On or around December 3, 2021, Petitioner Pratt submitted an amended religious
accommodation request in which she explained that her trust in God prohibits her from getting
vaccinated from COVID-19. Petitioner Pratt explained that she believes that God created her
immune system and that God intended her to become immune from COVID-19 via natural
immunity.
190. On or around December 6, 2021, Petitioner Pratt was deemed “unfit for duty” and
prohibited from working as a senior court office assistant/clerical assistant.
191. To date, Petitioner Pratt remains unvaccinated against COVID-19, as the
192. True and correct copies of Petitioner Pratt’s positive COVID-19 test, request for
religious accommodation, amended request for religious accommodation and subsequent denial
letters from the UCS are attached hereto as Exhibit L.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78
193. Petitioners repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
194. Petitioners have commenced this proceeding pursuant to New York CPLR § 7803.
{H3325943.1} 34
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
34 of 56
195. Respondents, in adopting the Vaccine Mandate have proceeded without and/or in
excess of its jurisdiction.
196. Respondents failed to articulate its authority for the implementation of the Vaccine
mandate for its employees.
197. Respondents have adopted the Vaccine Mandate in violation of lawful procedure.
198. Respondents’ adoption of the Vaccine Mandate was affected by an error of law.
199. Respondents’ adoption of the Vaccine Mandate was arbitrary and capricious.
200. Respondents’ adoption of the Vaccine Mandate adoption was an abuse of
discretion.
201. As in Natl. Fed’n of Ind. Bus. v DOL, OSHA, 142 S Ct 661, 664 [2022], where an
Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandate operated as a “blunt instrument,” as it
drew no distinctions, Respondents’ Vaccine Mandate has arbitrarily deemed Petitioners,
unvaccinated from the COVID-19 virus, as “unfit to work” and is without sound basis in reason,
logic, law, or fact, particularly given that Respondents have offered no scientific or otherwise
credible evidence upon which to impose a compulsory vaccination requirement, nor explain why
Petitioners, who have acquired immunity to the virus by way of natural immunity, are subject to
compulsory vaccination while already immune.
202. The actions of Respondents in deeming Petitioners “unfit to work” are arbitrary and
capricious within the meaning of Article 78, and Respondents should be enjoined from enforcing
such determinations as against Petitioners.
203. By reason of the foregoing given the arbitrary and capricious nature of the Vaccine
Mandate, it should be deemed void and unenforceable, and the Petitioners are entitled to relief,
including injunctive relief.
{H3325943.1} 35
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
35 of 56
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

DECLARING THE VACCINE MANDATE
TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
205. The New York State Constitution provides for a distribution and complete
separation of powers among the three “co-ordinate and co[-]equal branches” of government: the
executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. County of Oneida v. Berle, 49 N.Y.2d 515, 522 (1980);
see also LaGuardia v. Smith, 288 N.Y. 1, 5-6 (1942); N.Y. Const., art. III, sec. 1; art. IV, sec. 1;
and art. VI.
206. In the context of the New York State Constitution, “the separation of powers
‘requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch's
responsibility is to implement those policies.’” Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v.
Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 821-822 (2003) (quoting Bourquin v. Cuomo, 85 NY2d 781, 784 (1995))
(emphasis added)
207. Matters of public policy are reserved for the legislature. See In re Kilton, 156 N.H.
632, 645, 939 A.2d 198, 209 (2007); see also Polonsky v. Town of Bedford, 171 N.H. 89, 97, 190
A.3d 400, 407 (2018)
208. The imposition of a vaccine requirement is a critical policy decision reserved for
the legislature. “It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law,
and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether
vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the
public health.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22, 25 S. Ct. 358, 359 (1905)
{H3325943.1} 36
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
36 of 56
209. The Vaccine Mandate promulgated by Respondents is a broad public health
measure, because it is a compulsory vaccination requirement for UCS employees to continue their
employment. Further, the Vaccine Mandate is a broad public health measure, because it requires
UCS employees to submit to a vaccine: a permanent, body-altering medical procedure. To wit, a
UCS employee who decides to subject himself to the Vaccine Mandate to continue his employment
with the UCS will have no option to purge himself of the COVID-19 vaccine upon termination or
retirement.
210. In Natl. Fed’n of Ind. Bus. v DOL, OSHA, 142 S Ct 661, 662 [2022], the Court
found that the vaccine mandate promulgated by OSHA likely exceeded OSHA’s statutory
authority because it raised separation-of powers concerns in the absence of a clear delegation from
Congress. Likewise, the instant Vaccine Mandate is unconstitutional, because it was promulgated
by Respondents, who are not members of the New York State legislature.
211. Accordingly, Petitioners seek a declaration of this Court declaring the Vaccine
Mandate to be facially and substantively unconstitutional, as an unconstitutional promulgation of
critical policy reserved to the New York State legislature by the Respondents.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT — RIGHT TO PRIVACY
UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
213. Petitioners and all American citizens are guaranteed the right to privacy, personal
dignity and individual autonomy which “are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health 497
{H3325943.1} 37
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
37 of 56
U.S. 261 (1990) (noting that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures the
right to refuse the administration of certain drugs and life-sustaining medical treatment).
214. Nevertheless, the Respondents issued the Vaccine Mandate which requires UCS
employees, including Petitioners, to become vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus.
Unvaccinated UCS employees are not permitted to continue working unless they have a valid
medical or religious exemption.
215. Petitioners refuse to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 for a number of reasons,
including previous infection, overcoming the same and developing natural immunity from future
COVID-19 infections.
216. The Vaccine Mandate does not provide for an exemption for UCS employees who
have been previously infected from COVID-19 and thereby acquired natural immunity to COVID-
19.
217. The subject vaccines do not prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 virus and
naturally acquired immunity – such as that acquired by Petitioners herein – which has been
determined to be as effective as vaccine acquired immunity in preventing COVID-19 infection,
morbidity and mortality.
218. By insisting that the Petitioners receive an experimental vaccination to which they
object and thereby forcing the Petitioners to choose between continued employment and their
constitutional right to privacy and personal autonomy, the Respondents have violated the
Petitioners’ right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
{H3325943.1} 38
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
38 of 56
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AMENDMENT — SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
220. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant
part, that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
221. Petitioners have a liberty and/or property interest in continuing their employment
while maintaining bodily autonomy free from “arbitrary deprivation from the state”.
222. Substantive due process, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, permits courts
to strike down laws that are unreasonable, arbitrary, or without relation to the purpose of litigation.
See Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934).
223. Although there exists a legitimate State interest in protecting their employees’
health and welfare, the actions of Respondents are unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious, and are
not the least restrictive means for achieving the State’s interests.
224. The Vaccine Mandate does not further the State’s interest in protecting its
employees’ health and welfare, because vaccinated UCS employees can still transmit the COVID-
19 virus. Accordingly, Respondents’ actions in designating Petitioners who remain unvaccinated
from the COVID-19 virus as “unfit for duty” is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and are not the
least restrictive means for achieving the state’s interests.
225. The Vaccine Mandate is not the least restrictive means for achieving the State’s
interest in protecting its employees’ health and welfare, because natural immunity provides better
protection. By way of natural immunity, Petitioners have become immune to the COVID-19 virus.
{H3325943.1} 39
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
39 of 56
Further, their risk of transmitting the virus is the same, if not lower, than the risk of a vaccinated
person transmitting COVID-19.
226. There exists no valid or sound scientific or otherwise credible rationale for
prohibiting Petitioners to return to work, for the reason that Respondents have failed to establish
how the Vaccine Mandate is the least restrictive way of protecting the State’s interest in preserving
its employees’ health and welfare. In particular, there exists no rational basis for deeming
Petitioners, who have acquired natural immunity from the virus, as “unfit for duty”.
227. As a result, Respondents’ actions, including the Vaccine Mandate and associated
guidance, are arbitrary, capricious, constitute an abuse of discretion, and a violation of Petitioners’
constitutional rights.
228. For those Petitioners who have acquired natural immunity from the COVID-19
virus, Respondents’ actions in requiring naturally-immune Petitioners to become vaccinated
against the COVID-19 virus do not further the State’s interest in protecting their employees’ health
and welfare, and are unduly restrictive of Petitioners’ constitutional rights, as there is no evidence
to suggest that Petitioners would be placing other UCS employees at any greater risk of contracting
COV1D-19 than vaccinated individuals
229. By reason of the foregoing, Respondents have violated Petitioners’ substantive due
process rights under the United States Constitution.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AMENDMENT — PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
{H3325943.1} 40
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
40 of 56
231. Procedural due process is similarly a form of due process provided by the
Fourteenth Amendment, and recognized by the Supreme Court, which protects Petitioners from
the loss of liberties or property interests without the benefit of a fair procedural process. See Bd.
Of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth. 408 U.S. 564 (1972); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
232. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees an individual's liberty and property from
deprivation by a state government employer without due process. See Cleveland Board of
Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 538 (1985). Protected interests are not created by the
Constitution; "'they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or
understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.'" Id. (quoting Board of
Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)).
233. Under New York law, a public employee's interest in continued employment is a
property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.; See generally Berns v. Civil Service
Commission, 537 F.2d 714, 716 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 930 (1977); see also O'Neill
v. City of Auburn, 23 F.3d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1994)
234. Petitioners, as public employees of UCS, have a liberty and/or property interest in
their continued employment.
235. By way of the Vaccine Mandate, Respondents gave Petitioners, an ultimatum:
submit to vaccination for the COVID-19 virus or lose your employment.
236. Petitioners were not given fair notice of the Vaccine Mandate, because the Vaccine
Mandate failed to specify the need for all UCS employees to be vaccinated from COVID-19 and
was therefore defective.
237. Petitioners were able to safely work in their roles prior to the implementation of the
Vaccine Mandate. Petitioners, who have acquired natural immunity from the virus, were not
{H3325943.1} 41
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
41 of 56
apprised of any reason they would be unable to safely continue their employment after acquiring
immunity from the COVID-19 virus by way of natural immunity.
238. There exists no valid or sound scientific or medical rationale for deeming
Petitioners “unfit to work” by Respondents, as Respondents have failed to establish how immunity
acquired via COVID-19 vaccination is superior to natural immunity possessed by the Petitioners.
In particular, Respondents have failed to establish how Petitioners, who are naturally immune from
COVID-19, contribute to the increased risk of exposure, or spread, of the virus.
239. As a result, Respondents’ actions, including the Vaccine Mandate and associated
guidance, are arbitrary, capricious, constitute an abuse of discretion, and unlawful based violation
of Petitioners’ constitutional rights.
240. By deeming Petitioners who objected to COVID-19 vaccination as “unfit to work”,
the Respondents have violated the Petitioners’ interest in their continued employment as UCS
employees.
241. By reason of the foregoing, Respondents have violated Petitioners’ procedural due
process rights under the United States Constitution.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
243. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides, in relevant part: “[N]or shall any state . . . deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
{H3325943.1} 42
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
42 of 56
244. At its core, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution functions as a constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied
the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups; in other words, persons
who appear similarly situated must be similarly treated.
245. When those who appear similarly situated are nevertheless treated differently, the
Equal Protection Clause requires at least a rational basis for such disparate treatment, to ensure
that all persons subject to legislation or regulation are indeed being “treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions.” Engquist v. Ore. Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 602 (2008).
246. The USC Vaccine Mandate is solely directed at unvaccinated employees and
discriminates against them on the basis of their immunity status.
247. Respondents deprive unvaccinated employees and/or unvaccinated, naturally
immune employees’ access to their chosen careers and professions by denying those who have
natural immunity the ability to work, while permitting vaccine-immunized employees to continue
and maintain their respective job positions and careers.
248. Here, as other states, governments, and employers are relaxing their COVID-19-
related restrictions based on new data that is emerging daily; the Respondents have not relaxed
restrictions, particularly the Vaccine Mandate, and are thus discriminating against identically
situated individuals without any rational basis.
249. The New York State Unified Court System’s vaccinated employees are free to
continue to work in their chosen professions, whereas Respondents, through Judge Marks’
Memorandum, are preventing Petitioners from so working, under threat of being deemed "unfit
for duty” and ultimately, subject to job termination.
{H3325943.1} 43
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
43 of 56
250. The differential treatment of unvaccinated employees furthers no compelling or
important government interest, nor is the differential treatment narrowly tailored, substantially
related to, or the least restrictive alternative for promoting an interest. Nor is there even a rational
connection between any legitimate governmental interest and Respondents’ disparate treatment of
unvaccinated employees who were denied employment on the basis of their immunity status.
251. There is no rational basis for the disparate treatment of Petitioners by Respondents,
as compared to identically situated employees, given the natural immunity acquired by Petitioners,
and the vaccine-induced immunity acquired by the employees who are permitted to continue to
work.
252. There exists no substantial difference in the COVID-19 infection rate that would
otherwise justify Respondents’ targeting of Petitioners in the instant action, particularly when
natural immunity to COVID-19 is functionally equivalent to vaccine induced immunity (see,
Declaration of Clayton J. Baker, M.D. and Affidavit of Paulette Niewczyk, MPH, Ph.D).
253. The Vaccine Mandate at issue establishes a classification which burdens
Petitioners’ rights, as the Vaccine Mandate targets a “suspect class” by treating a class of
employees differently than other employees.
254. The Vaccine Mandate and Respondents’ practices may be subject to heightened
scrutiny (“strict scrutiny”) because a suspect class invokes a fundamental right and/or interest.
255. Strict scrutiny requires the State to show that the classification at issue is tailored
to promote a compelling governmental interest.
256. The Vaccine Mandate and Respondents’ practices are invalid under any level of
constitutional scrutiny because they were initiated for the improper purpose of disadvantaging a
specific class, and are founded in animus towards employees’ immunity and vaccination status.
{H3325943.1} 44
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
44 of 56
Moreover, the Vaccine Mandate serves no legitimate governmental interest, as protecting the
public good from COVID-19 can be accomplished through less invasive and restrictive policies.
257. By reason of the foregoing, as applied to the Petitioners, the Vaccine Mandate
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore void and
unenforceable.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
FIRST AMENDMENT – FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
259. Petitioners in this action have applied for religious exemptions under the Vaccine
Mandate and those requests have been denied.
260. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
prohibits the making of any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; . . .”
261. For purposes of satisfying the Free Exercise Clause, the State of New York, and
any agency or department thereof, fails to act neutrally or in a generally applicable manner when
it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs.
262. In reviewing applications for religious exemptions submitted by employees under
the UCS Vaccine Mandate, the UCS could not pass judgment on or presuppose the illegitimacy of
religious beliefs or practices of employee applicants.
263. In reviewing applications for religious exemptions under the UCS Vaccine
Mandate, the UCS improperly considered the following purported criteria:
• Whether the expressed belief was religious;
{H3325943.1} 45
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
45 of 56
• Whether the expressed belief was sincerely held;

• Whether there was a “nexus” between “the employee’s religious beliefs and
the decision to abstain from COVID-19 vaccination”; and
• Whether the expressed beliefs were “personal feelings against vaccination
akin to a secular philosophy, such as concerns simply over the safety of the
vaccine.”
264. Since an application of the above criteria places the UCS in the non-neutral position
of passing judgment on the religious beliefs of the employee-applicants, the mechanism employed
to review religious exemption applications must satisfy the “strict scrutiny” test, as it has been
articulated by the United States Supreme Court. See Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 141 S. Ct. 1868
(2021).
265. To survive under the “strict scrutiny test”, not only must the government actively
advance interests of the highest order, it must be narrowly tailored to meet that interest, which the
Supreme Court has interpreted as the “least restrictive means.” See id.
266. The application of the sweeping, subjective criteria listed above is clearly not the
“least restrictive” means by which to review religious exemption applications; moreover, the
Respondents do not have a compelling interest in denying religious exemptions to the Petitioners
because granting the requested exemptions will not have any material adverse effect on the
effectiveness of the Vaccine Mandate.
267. By reason of the foregoing, given that the mechanism used by the Respondents to
evaluate religious exemption applications under the Vaccine Mandate fails to satisfy the “strict
scrutiny test,” the Vaccine Mandate violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
268. Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation in the preceding

{H3325943.1} 46
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
46 of 56
269. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides, in relevant part: “In any action or proceeding to
enforce a provision of [42 U.S.C. § 1983] . . . the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing
party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs[.]”
270. The Supreme Court, in Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), confirmed the
discretion of courts to award attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in actions where a
Petitioner is seeking redress for the deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
271. In the instant proceeding, Petitioners’ First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes
of Action are each brought to enforce a provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – namely, that Respondents
have subjected Petitioners to the egregious and substantial deprivation of certain rights, privileges,
and immunities secured by, inter alia, First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
272. These rights include, but are not limited to, Petitioners’ rights to equal protection
under the Fourteenth Amendment, Petitioners’ right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment,
Petitioners’ right to the freedom of expression under the First Amendment, and Petitioners’ rights
to substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendments.
273. Accordingly, Petitioners seek their reasonable attorney fees as part of their costs in
seeking redress for the deprivation of their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioners demand Judgment as follows:
a. On their First Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order including: (i) a
preliminary injunction, and ultimately a permanent injunction, enjoining
Respondents from enforcing the Vaccine Mandate; and (ii) enter an Order
permitting Petitioners to resume their employment with the UCS in their
former positions.
{H3325943.1} 47
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
47 of 56
b. On their Second Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring
the Vaccine Mandate unconstitutional; (ii) permanently enjoining
Respondents from enforcing the Vaccine Mandate; and (iii) permitting
Petitioners to resume their employment with the UCS in their former positions;
c. On their Third Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring the
Vaccine Mandate unconstitutional; (ii) permanently enjoining Respondents
from enforcing the Vaccine Mandate; and (iii) permitting Petitioners to resume
their employment with the UCS in their former positions;
d. On their Fourth Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring
e. On their Fifth Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring the
f. On their Sixth Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring the
g. On their Seventh Cause of Action, that the Court enter an Order: (i) declaring
{H3325943.1} 48
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
48 of 56
h. On their Eighth Cause of Action, that this Court enter an Order awarding
Petitioners reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
i. Awarding such other and further additional relief as this Court may deem just,
proper, and equitable.
Dated: March 8, 2022

Amherst, New York
HOGANWILLIG, PLLC
By: ___________________________
Corey J. Hogan, Esq.
Attorneys for Petitioners
2410 North Forest Road, Suite 301
Amherst, New York 14068
Telephone: (716) 636-7600
chogan@hoganwillig.com
{H3325943.1} 49
HOGANWILLIG
Attorneys at Law
49 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
AMY BRIGNALL, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is a Plaintiff in this
proceeding, and that she has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and knows of the contents
thereof, that the same are true of your Deponent’s knowledge, except as to matters therein stated
to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your Deponent believes them
to be true.
Sworn and subscribed before me

this of March 2022.
Notary Public
M. MiLLEF
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
NO.01MI6347895
Qualified in Wayne County y
My Commission Expires /
{H3308416.I}
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
50 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
AMY BRIGNALL, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is a representative of the
Plaintiff entity in this proceeding, and that she has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and
knows of the contents thereof, that the same are true of your Deponent’s knowledge, except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your
Deponent believes them to be true.
AMY BRIGNALlO
this ^dav of March 2022.
f
Notary Public
MARIANNE M. MILLER
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK
NO.01MI6347895
Qualified in Wayne County
My Commission Expires T0-03-_zZL.
{H3326014.1}
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
Phone: 716.636.7600 | Toll Free: 800.636.5255 | Fax:716-636.7606 | www.hoganwillig.com
51 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF DRANK*’ 3
PAUL DIPIERRO, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is a Petitioner in this
proceeding, and that he has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and knows of the contents
to be true. //
PAUL DIPIERRO
Sworn and subscribed before
this Vday ofMarcl. W?
Notary Public
MARIA N.JETJOMLONO
Notary Public. State of New Yo*
No. 01JE5058519 .
Qualified in Orange County /)/ n
Commission Expires April B,
‘IIoganWiMm.
Attorneys sit
2410 NORTH FOREST ROAD J SUITE 301 J AMHERST. NEW.VOW
Phone: 716.636.7600 | Toll Free: 800.636.5255 ) Fax: 716.636.7&06 ] www*0gHBW»tKg^»,n
52 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
COUNTY OF STEUBEN )
JAMIE HAWLEY, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is a representative of the
Plaintiff entity in this proceeding, and that she has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and
knows of the contents thereof, that the same are true of your Deponent’s knowledge, except as to
matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters, your
Deponent believes them to be true.

n
HAWLEY

this 8 day of March 2022.
r
(fCMc 1
Notary Public
{H3326011.1}
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
Phnnr- 716 616 7600 I Tnll Fw ROO 616 I 716 616 7606 1 www hna«nwi!lia rnm
53 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
COUNTY OF STEUBEN )
JAMIE HAWLEY, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is a Plaintiff in this
to be true.
J. IE HAWLEY

this S day of March 2022.
otai Public (j
{H 3308361.1)
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
Phone: 716.636.7600 | Toll Free: 800.636.5255 ] Fax: 716.636.7606 ] www.hoganwillig.com
54 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )
GERARD KAELIN, being duly sworn, deposes and states that he is a Petitioner in this
proceeding, and that he has read the foregoing Verified Complaint and knows of the contents
to be true.
GERARD KAELIN
this ' day of March 2022.
(orary Public (J v
APHRODITE Z. FLEFLEH
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 4799791
Qualified in Queens County
Certificate Filed in New York County
Commission Expires December 31 , 20^0
0 1
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
55 of 56
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK )

)ss:
COUNTY OF STEUBEN )
MEREDITH PRATT, being duly sworn, deposes and states that she is a Plaintiff in this
to be true.
MEREDITH PRATT
>rn/nd subscribed before me

Sworn,
this ’ 0 day of March 2022.
GABRIELLE RENEE VIOLETTE
Notary Public * State of New York
NO. O1VI64O7515
Qualified In Steuben County
My Commission Expires Jun 15, 2024
Not: Public
{113308378.1]
HoganWillig
Attorneys at Law
241 O NORTH FOREST ROAD | SUITE 301 | AMHERST, NEW YORK 14068
Phone: 716.636.7600 ] Toll Free: 800.636.5255 | Fax: 716.636.7606 | www.hoganwillig.com
56 of 56

Amy Brignall Et Al v. New York State Unified Court System Et. Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

You might also like

Amy Brignall Et Al v. New York State Unified Court System Et. Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Amy Brignall Et Al v. New York State Unified Court System Et. Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

FILED: STEUBEN COUNTY CLERK 03/08/2022 05:41 PM INDEX NO.

STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK STATE

The above-named Petitioners/Plaintiffs AMY BRIGNALL, FRAN-MARIE

CHERESNOWSKY, PAUL DIPIERRO, JAMIE HAWLEY, GERARD KAELIN, GWEN

counsel, hereby allege as follows:

constitutional right to make decisions about their own health.

now recognized superiority of natural immunity (immunity to an infectious agent caused by

to vaccine induced immunity in both strength and duration.1

In view of the foregoing, it is medically and scientifically senseless to require naturally

chosen by the people through democratic processes.”

violation of their rights.

resident of the County of Wayne, State of New York.

6. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner Fran-Marie Cheresnowsky

resident of the County of Orange, State of New York.

resident of the County of Steuben, State of New York.

resident of the County of Suffolk, State of New York.

of the County of Monroe, State of New York.

of the County of Steuben, State of New York.

New York, New York 10004.

15. Respondent Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is an administrative

Street, First Floor, New York, New York 10004.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

retroactive to January 27, 2020.4

end of 2020 or early 2021.5

challenged the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

to the unsafe accelerated timeline of the COVID-19 vaccine development.

arguments in favor of mandated vaccination weaken concurrently.

19, but with COVID-19.

percentage is two percent (2%), or approximately 16,000 deaths.

effectiveness against mortality; and (vi) effectiveness against transmission of COVID-19.14

FDA-approved vaccine for children under the age of sixteen (16).

in sporting activities, entertainment, social functions, and cultural events if unvaccinated. 19

infected with the virus, including its Omicron variant.20

the virus just like unvaccinated people can,” Fauci said.23

51. Although vaccinated individuals suffering from a breakthrough infection are

52. The ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing infections is in stark

temporary immunity that the COVID-19 vaccines provide.

55. In short, the Harvard-published meta-analysis definitively shows that vaccination

and virology principles, as well as empirical data.

Petitioners – have elected to abstain from immediate vaccination.

having fully recovered from the COVID-19 virus.

falls lower and lower, approaching influenza-type levels.

service of what is an employer’s futile and harmful pursuit of “zero COVID.”

is now EXTREMELY common – is superior in both quality and duration to vaccine-induced

vaccine-induced immunity – meaning a naturally immune person is less of a potential threat of

transmission than a vaccinated person.

immunity to vaccine-induced immunity for prevention of COVID-19. 28

naturally immune has NO proven legitimate medical or scientific basis.

establishment medicine sources as “misinformation,” is now becoming increasingly accepted. The

mandatory vaccination edicts.” 29

form of immunity than vaccinated individuals.

natural immunity to COVID-19 as functionally equivalent to vaccination with regard to

vaccination requirements. This is the prevailing trend, and rightly so.

acquired COVID-19 convalescence immunity was at least equivalent to vaccine-acquired

immunity in preventing COVID-19 infection, morbidity, and mortality.30

one (1) individual died. 31

“Our results question the need to vaccinate previously infected individuals.” 32

immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against COVID-19.35

71. It is noteworthy that demonstration of serological immunity with antibody testing

example, in patients wishing to attend colleges that require proof of measles/mumps/rubella

universally suffices – as it should with COVID-19, as well.