Sokoloff Stern LLP

Susan H. Odessky

Ms. Odessky graduated with honors from the City University of New York, Brooklyn College, and obtained her J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1989. She is admitted to practice law before the New York State courts and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Ms. Odessky’s work focuses in the areas of civil rights and employment law. She has represented several New York State agencies and their employees and has successfully defeated claims through motion practice and jury trials in federal and state courts.

Ms. Odessky served as an Assistant District Attorney with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office under Robert M. Morgenthau for nine years, where she defeated appeals brought by criminal defendants in state and federal courts, including the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, the New York State Court of Appeals, and the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, successfully prosecuted many felony cases at trial and evidentiary hearings, and utilized New York State asset forfeiture laws effectively to eradicate illegal narcotics trafficking in residential multiple dwellings.

Ms. Odessky subsequently served as an Assistant Attorney General with the New York State Attorney General’s Office’s New York City Civil Litigation Bureau for thirteen years. She tried and won several notable cases before juries, including Terranova v. Torres, successfully defeating the claim of two motorcyclists and the estate of a third rider that the NYS Police had violated their Fourth Amendment rights against improper seizure by utilizing a traffic stoppage to apprehend the speeding motorcyclists. She won a jury verdict on behalf of the New York State Division of Parole in the employment discrimination case of Weeks v. New York State, defeating a claim by a female parole officer that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race and gender. The jury’s verdict was upheld on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in a notable employment law decision. In Bracy v. The State of New York, the jury found for the New York State Department of Correctional Services and a corrections officer, denying a claim by a female employee that she had been subject to race and gender discrimination. In Beckford v. Melendez, a jury decided in favor of five court officers (one officer was dismissed by the Court on a motion following plaintiff’s case), finding that they did not use excessive force in removing an unruly spectator from White Plains Supreme Court during a sentencing. In Dallas v. Goldberg, Ms. Odessky won a jury verdict on behalf of two NYS Police Investigators who were charged with falsely arresting and maliciously prosecuting an individual who they apprehended following a narcotics raid on a residence in a joint operation with the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department.

Ms. Odessky won the Louis J. Lefkowitz Memorial Award in recognition of outstanding performance on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office. In addition to handling her own caseload of civil rights and employment law cases, Ms. Odessky instructed junior attorneys in trial advocacy and motion practice. She received instruction as a trial advocacy trainer from both the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA) and the National Attorneys General Training and Research Institute (NAGTRI).

Ms. Odessky has defended many cases before the United States District Courts and the New York State Courts which resulted in the following positive cited decisions, among many others:

Cole v. Goord, 379 Fed. Appx. 28 (2d Cir. 2010), aff’d, Cole v. Goord, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10697 (2d Cir. 2010): District Court dismissed prison inmate’s claim that his Eighth Amendment rights were denied, finding that prison physicians properly determined that inmate’s urological condition did not require surgery. The District Court’s decision was upheld on appeal to Second Circuit.

Watson v. Mayo, 07 Civ. 54, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18444 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2008): District Court granted motion to dismiss inmate’s Eighth Amendment claim of excessive force by a correction officer. Years earlier, plaintiff had brought the same claim against three other officers but the fourth officer had been dismissed from that suit due to improper service. The fourth officer appeared at trial of the other three as a witness and the jury found in favor of them. Plaintiff filed separate complaint against fourth officer for same incident more than two years after trial. The District Court dismissed the belated suit against the fourth officer, finding it was barred by the doctrines of laches and claim preclusion.

Green v. Phillips, 04 Civ. 10202, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14960 (Mar. 31, 2006): Summary judgment granted to corrections officer, hearing officer, and corrections medical staff, dismissing plaintiff’s claims that he was retaliated against for his hunger strike, he received inadequate medical treatment and his due process rights were violated during a disciplinary hearing. The District Court’s decision was affirmed on appeal.

Gonzalez v. Nacarato, 363 F. Supp.2d 486 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2005): Summary judgment granted to prison officials based on evidence showing that they did not violate his First Amendment right to participate in a religious ceremony. Plaintiff’s right to attend the ceremony was outweighed by the safety concerns posed by plaintiff’s threatening letters to a religious leader scheduled to attend the ceremony. The District Court’s decision was upheld on appeal.

Poole v. Strack, 00 Civ. 1228, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7124 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2003): Following evidentiary hearing in habeas corpus proceeding, the District Court found plaintiff’s claim that he exhausted his right to a state appeal by sending six letters to the Appellate Division incredible. The defense’s evidence and cross-examination of plaintiff revealed that the letters were all photocopies manufactured by the plaintiff years after he claimed to have sent them to the court.

Rivera v. Goord, 253 F. Supp.2d 735 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2003): Grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment on behalf of prison officials, physicians and dentists, based upon evidence showing that prison staff adequately treated plaintiff’s multiple medical and dental issues.

Williams v. Muller, 98 Civ. 5204, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12152 (Aug. 17, 2001): Inmate's claim of First Amendment retaliation was dismissed on summary judgment, where he offered no evidence, besides conclusory allegations, of statements made by corrections officer, concerning his filing of an allegedly false misbehavior report.

Gray v. Murry, 99 Civ. 2767, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10194 (July 19, 2001): District Court granted summary judgment of corrections officials and officers and dismissed plaintiff’s claim that they had failed to adequately protect him from assault by fellow inmate.

Solomon v. Moore, 97 Civ. 0201, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4779 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2000): Department of Corrections nurse’s summary judgment motion granted because inmate failed to demonstrate that he suffered from sufficiently serious physical injury to his neck and spine to support 8th Amendment violation.

People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840 (1994): Court of Appeals upheld appellate court’s affirmance of criminal defendant’s conviction for possession of drugs, finding that appellate court correctly determined that defendant was a casual visitor to the apartment that police officers entered without a warrant and thus, defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy within the apartment and, thus, he lacked standing to challenge the warrantless entry.

People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875 (1993): Court of Appeals upheld criminal defendant’s conviction for grand larceny, denying defendants’ claim that there had been an error in the court’s exclusion of two jurors based upon their race pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Court specifically rejected defendant’s argument that, regardless of race, “minorities” in general constitute a cognizable racial group.