UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chamolin Rockefeller, Plaintiff, V. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:25-cv-05210 (KMK)
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Chamolin Rockefeller hereby moves this Court, before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Judge, for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This motion is based upon: e The accompanying Memorandum of Law e The Declaration of Chamolin Rockefeller e The attached Exhibits A-G e All pleadings and proceedings previously had herein Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and irreparable harm. Plaintiff further requests that the Court waive any bond requirement pursuant to Rule 65(c), as this action seeks to enforce federal civil rights and the requested relief imposes minimal burden on Defendants. _ Plaintiff's request for emergency relief is denied for the same reas described in the Court's previous orders. To the extent that she is asserting her own rights, and even with the benefit of the attachec exhibits, she still has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on merits by demonstrating or "alleg[ing] [any] facts showing that st Dated: 1 /au{ao2 G was... discriminated against by Defendants[] by reason of her Respectfully submitted, disability," and so has not shown a likelihood of success under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act on her own behalf. Rockefeller v. Dutchess Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL □□□ *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2025). Further, Plaintiff still has not show Chamolin Rockefeller Plaintiff, Pro Se that her claims are likely to fall outside the scope of abstention doctrines described in the Court's earlier decisions, e.g. Rockefeller v. Ne. Ctr. for Rehab. & Brain Inj., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL 2243583, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2025), nor has she explained how she would have standing to assert a claim on behalf her father, Rockefeller v. Ne. Ctr. for Rehab. & Brain Inj., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL 2821826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2025). Plaintiffs request is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully direct to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. No. 94. So Ordered. As
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chamolin Rockefeller, Plaintiff, v. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:25-cv-05210 (KMkK)
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION Exhibit A Physician Certification of Disability and Accommodation Need Exhibit B Northeast Center Accommodation Verification Form Exhibit C April 1, 2026 Email Rejecting Documentation on Notarization Grounds Exhibit D April 14, 2026 Email from Plaintiff to NEC Counsel Confirming Transmission of Medical Documentation Exhibit E April 23, 2026 ADA Follow-Up Request for Accommodation, Visitation, and Clarification Exhibit F Plaintiff's Written Statement Regarding April 14, 2026 Incident Exhibit G Ulster County Sheriff Contact Card and Case Number (2026-07800)
Exhibit A Physician Certification of Disability and Accommodation Need
3/23) por” Date: Dear Physician, We have received a request for accommodation from Chamolin Rockefeller. We are writing because we need additional information to determine whether we can accommodate her and, if so, what accommodation is appropriate. To assist us with this, please answer the questions below: 1) Does the individual have a physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment that limits one or more major life activities? Answer: Yes. The patient has a qualifying medical condition that can substantially limit major life activities in certain high-stress or adversarial environments. 2) If you answered yes to the first question, how is the individual limited? Answer: In such environments, the patient may experience difficulty processing complex information, communicating effectively, and regulating stress. 3) If you answered yes to the first question, how long will the individual have this impairment? O# of weeks of months permanently Other (Please explain): Ongoing 4) Does the individual require an accommodation to participate in a care planning conference at the long-term care facility? Answer: Yes 5) What accommodation does the individual need? Answer: The presence of a designated support person during care planning conferences and related interactions. Additionally, modification of overly restrictive or stressful visitation conditions, when appropriate. 6) How would your suggestions allow the individual to participate in the care planning conference? Answer: These accommodations support effective communication, comprehension of complex information, and meaningful participation in care-related discussions and interactions. 7) In particular, the individual has requested to bring a support person or advocate with them to the care planning conference. Is this a necessary accommodation to allow them to participate in the care planning conference? Please explain why or why not. Answer: Yes. A support person is medically necessary to assist with communication, information processing, and stress regulation in these settings. 8) Please provide any additional information that may be helpful in evaluating this request. Answer: These limitations are context-specific and primarily arise in high-stress or institutional environments. They do not reflect the patient’s overall functional capacity in stable, supportive settings. Reasonable accommodations should also be considered in the context of visitation, as overly restrictive or stressful conditions may exacerbate symptoms and interfere with the patient's ability to engage meaningfully. The recommended accommodations are intended to support equitable access and participation, not to limit independence or functional capacity in other settings. “et cfg Phy: Please Print)
Signature of Physician Date: 5 | 23/2 (?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chamolin Rockefeller, Plaintiff, V. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:25-cv-05210 (KMK)
NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Chamolin Rockefeller hereby moves this Court, before the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Judge, for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This motion is based upon: e The accompanying Memorandum of Law e The Declaration of Chamolin Rockefeller e The attached Exhibits A-G e All pleadings and proceedings previously had herein Plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and irreparable harm. Plaintiff further requests that the Court waive any bond requirement pursuant to Rule 65(c), as this action seeks to enforce federal civil rights and the requested relief imposes minimal burden on Defendants. _ Plaintiff's request for emergency relief is denied for the same reas described in the Court's previous orders. To the extent that she is asserting her own rights, and even with the benefit of the attachec exhibits, she still has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on merits by demonstrating or "alleg[ing] [any] facts showing that st Dated: 1 /au{ao2 G was... discriminated against by Defendants[] by reason of her Respectfully submitted, disability," and so has not shown a likelihood of success under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act on her own behalf. Rockefeller v. Dutchess Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL □□□ *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2025). Further, Plaintiff still has not show Chamolin Rockefeller Plaintiff, Pro Se that her claims are likely to fall outside the scope of abstention doctrines described in the Court's earlier decisions, e.g. Rockefeller v. Ne. Ctr. for Rehab. & Brain Inj., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL 2243583, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2025), nor has she explained how she would have standing to assert a claim on behalf her father, Rockefeller v. Ne. Ctr. for Rehab. & Brain Inj., No. 25-CV-5210, 2025 WL 2821826, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2025). Plaintiffs request is therefore denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully direct to terminate the pending motion at Dkt. No. 94. So Ordered. As
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chamolin Rockefeller, Plaintiff, v. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:25-cv-05210 (KMkK)
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION Exhibit A Physician Certification of Disability and Accommodation Need Exhibit B Northeast Center Accommodation Verification Form Exhibit C April 1, 2026 Email Rejecting Documentation on Notarization Grounds Exhibit D April 14, 2026 Email from Plaintiff to NEC Counsel Confirming Transmission of Medical Documentation Exhibit E April 23, 2026 ADA Follow-Up Request for Accommodation, Visitation, and Clarification Exhibit F Plaintiff's Written Statement Regarding April 14, 2026 Incident Exhibit G Ulster County Sheriff Contact Card and Case Number (2026-07800)
Exhibit A Physician Certification of Disability and Accommodation Need
3/23) por” Date: Dear Physician, We have received a request for accommodation from Chamolin Rockefeller. We are writing because we need additional information to determine whether we can accommodate her and, if so, what accommodation is appropriate. To assist us with this, please answer the questions below: 1) Does the individual have a physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment that limits one or more major life activities? Answer: Yes. The patient has a qualifying medical condition that can substantially limit major life activities in certain high-stress or adversarial environments. 2) If you answered yes to the first question, how is the individual limited? Answer: In such environments, the patient may experience difficulty processing complex information, communicating effectively, and regulating stress. 3) If you answered yes to the first question, how long will the individual have this impairment? O# of weeks of months permanently Other (Please explain): Ongoing 4) Does the individual require an accommodation to participate in a care planning conference at the long-term care facility? Answer: Yes 5) What accommodation does the individual need? Answer: The presence of a designated support person during care planning conferences and related interactions. Additionally, modification of overly restrictive or stressful visitation conditions, when appropriate. 6) How would your suggestions allow the individual to participate in the care planning conference? Answer: These accommodations support effective communication, comprehension of complex information, and meaningful participation in care-related discussions and interactions. 7) In particular, the individual has requested to bring a support person or advocate with them to the care planning conference. Is this a necessary accommodation to allow them to participate in the care planning conference? Please explain why or why not. Answer: Yes. A support person is medically necessary to assist with communication, information processing, and stress regulation in these settings. 8) Please provide any additional information that may be helpful in evaluating this request. Answer: These limitations are context-specific and primarily arise in high-stress or institutional environments. They do not reflect the patient’s overall functional capacity in stable, supportive settings. Reasonable accommodations should also be considered in the context of visitation, as overly restrictive or stressful conditions may exacerbate symptoms and interfere with the patient's ability to engage meaningfully. The recommended accommodations are intended to support equitable access and participation, not to limit independence or functional capacity in other settings. “et cfg Phy: Please Print)
Signature of Physician Date: 5 | 23/2 (?
-oxwd] 29] HOO? ‘ Bates Dear Physician, We have Teceived & request for secommodation trom Chamotin Rockelatler. We are writing because we need Sdditional intermation te determing i "mathe can accommodate har and, itso, what accommodation aparconen’ To assist us with this, bisage answer the questions betowe: '1)D0es ‘ne incividuat have. physical, medical, mental or psychological impalement thet limits one Or mora major life activities? Anawer: Yes. Tre patient has g Quabtying medica! condition that can Suostantially mit major tife Sctivities in certyin high-stres¢ OF acvergariat i environments. 2) if you answered yes to the first question, tha individual limited? Answer; Such environments, the patient may experience citiculty Orocessing compiex information, communicating effectively, and tegulating stresa. It you answered yes "0 the frst question, how long will te individual have this impairment? 14 Of weaky # of months Oi permanentiy @ Other Please expisin): Ongoing 4) Dows the individual require an accommodation to participate ina care planning conference at the long-term care facility? Answer: i Yes $1 What secommodation doss the individust nea? Answer: The presence of a designated support Person during care Banning conterences and feloted Interactions. Additionally, modification Of overly restrictive or stressful visitation conditions, when appropriate, 8} How would your suggestions allow the individual te participate iq Ne care planning conference? Answer: These accommodations Suppor effective communication, comprehension of comptex information, ang Meaningful participation in care-related Siscussions and interactians, particutar, the individual has requested to bring a Support person or advocate with them to the care planning conference. ig this 2 "ssi accommodation tealiow temo paicipatein the cae panning contrence? Roses eae econ Yep. A Support person is Maedicaily tecessary te assist with Communication, information Processing, 8nd stress regulation in these settings. . 3} Please provide any additional information that may be helpful in evaluating this request, limitations are CGMext-Specific and primarily arise in hign-atress of institutional aovitonments. They do not reflect the patient's overall furictionat Capacity in stable, susportive settings. Regsonabie accommodations shouid algo be Sonsidered if the context of visitation, ay overly TOSIIICIVG OF stresstul Conditions may exacerbate SyMDIOMS and interfere with the patient's ability to engage Meaningtuity. The ‘ecommenced accommodations are iMended to support equitable SCCGSs and Hanticipation, net te timit independence or functional copacity in other Settings. 4 Lo . i ase Print) □□□ : Signbture of Physician j ~ ov 3/23/2(p
Exhibit B Northeast Center Accommodation Verification Form
Dear Physician, We have received a request for accommodation from Chamolin Rockefeller. We are writing because we need additional information to determine whether we can accommodate her and, if so, what accommodation is appropriate. To assist us with this, please answer the questions below: 1) Does the individual have a physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment that limits one or more major life activities? "Physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment" means (a) "an impairment of any system of the body, including, but not limited to: the neurological system; the musculoskeletal system; the special sense organs and respiratory organs, including, but not limited to, speech organs; the cardiovascular system; the reproductive system; the digestive and genito-urinary systems; the hemic and lymphatic systems; the immunological systems; the skin; and the endocrine system;" or (b) "a mental or psychological impairment” that limits the individual in one or more major life activities. Answer: 2) Ifyou answered yes to the first question, how is the individual limited? Answer:
3) If you answered yes to the first question, how long will the individual have this impairment? # of weeks # of months permanently __ Other (Please explain): 4) Does the individual require an accommodation to participate in a care planning conference at the long-term care facility? A “care planning conference” is a meeting where a resident, their guardian, family, and/or a care team discuss and develop a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident. Answer (please circle one): Yes / No If yes, please continue to next questions. 5) What accommodation does the individual need? Answer:
6) How would your suggestions allow the individual to participate in the care planning conference? Answer:
7) In particular, the individual has requested to bring a support person or advocate with them to the care planning conference. Is this a necessary accommodation to allow them to participate in the care planning conference? Please explain why or why not. Answer:
8) Please provide any additional information that may be helpful in evaluating this request. Answer:
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Physician Name (Please Print)
Signature of Physician completing form Date:
Sworn to before me this __ day of 2025
Notary Public
Exhibit C April 1, 2026 Email Rejecting Documentation on Notarization Grounds
> Outlook ser ra ne RE: ROCKEFELLER 3/23/2026 Cr rere From Julie Cole Date Wed 4/1/2026 12:48 PM To =Camolin rockefeller ; Bouffard, Mark (DFA) ; Julie Carroll Cc DeGroat, Cheryl (DFA) ; Bonomo-Gose, Christie (DFA)
Hello Chamolin, As Mr. Bouffard stated, the letter is not notarized and there is no way to verify the credentials of the provider. Please have your provider complete the paperwork previously provided to you. Also please ensure that credentials and contact information is provided so that we can confirm. Kind regards, Julie Julie Cole Director of Medical Records/Legal Liaison Northeast Center for Rehabilitation and Brain Injury 300 Grant Ave Lake Katrine, NY 12449 Phone: (845) 336-3500 x. 33185 Fax: (845)336-5948 Email: JCole @northeastcenter.com
wz NORTHEAST CENTER
This communication may contain confidential Protected Health Information. This information including any attachment is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party unless required to do so by law or regulation and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken on the reliance of the contents of these documents is STRICTLY PROHIBITED by federal law. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this transmission.
YQDEapmEc2 byACqAC % 2FEWgOABys4gMm3YUCZKCYPcHgUWgAJEA%2BU8QAA Page
Exhibit D April 14, 2026 Email from Plaintiff to NEC Counsel Confirming Transmission of Medical Documentation
Outlook Esc ss Perle SCS SS Sl RGN cess SSS Confirmation of Medical Documentation Transmission snl irre From Camolin rockefeller Date Tue 4/14/2026 1:42 PM To Mervis, Harvey D. ; Lewis, Anna ; info@hhk.com
Dear Mr. Mervis,
am writing to briefly confirm our conversation this morning.
As discussed, my physician's office has faxed the requested medical documentation, as directed by Ms. Julie Cole, to your office at Hinman, Howard & Kattell for the second time. also confirmed directly with my provider this morning that the documentation was sent.
Please confirm receipt at your earliest convenience.
Thank you, Chamolin Rockefeller
Get Outlook for iOS
live.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkKALgAAAAAAH YQDEapmEc2byACqAC %2FEWg0ABys4gMm3YUCZKCYPCcHgUWgAJG]/%2BQCQAA Pag
Exhibit E April 23, 2026 ADA Follow-Up Request for Accommodation, Visitation, and Clarification
Outlook rg eels SS Rockefeller- ADA accommodations and visitation From Camolin rockefeller Date Thu 4/23/2026 11:07 AM To Oblitas, Maria (DFA) ; Bouffard, Mark (DFA) ; Melissa Routson ; Julie Carroll ; Julie Cole Schlobohm, Frances (DFA) ; DeGroat, Chery! (DFA) ; Bonomo-Gose, Christie (DFA) ; dcfsinfo@dutchessny.gov
Dear Ms. Carroll, Ms. Cole, Mr. Bouffard, and Ms. Routson, am writing to formally follow up regarding my prior requests for ADA accommodation, meaningful participation in my father's care, and appropriate visitation. To date, no ADA interactive process has been initiated, and no individualized assessment has been conducted, despite repeated requests and verified medical documentation provided by my treating physician and PCA. As you are aware, my disability requires reasonable accommodation in order for me to meaningfully participate in care plan meetings and maintain contact with my father. This includes the presence of a support person and the ability to engage in an environment that does not exacerbate my condition. Despite this: e | was denied the presence of my support person at the April 14 care plan meeting No alternative accommodation was meaningfully offered e The meeting proceeded without my full and effective participation am requesting immediate visitation with my father under conditions that are appropriate, non-arbitrary, and based on an individualized assessment. At this time, | cannot participate in the currently imposed structure of limited, pre- scheduled, supervised visitation. That structure has been in place since December 2023 without any documented incident and without reassessment. It does not allow for meaningful interaction or preservation of the parent-child relationship, and it is not compatible with my disability-related needs as documented and verified. The continued reliance on a fixed, predetermined visitation structure—without individualized assessment or engagement in the ADA interactive process—is not
Page
appropriate. am ready and willing to visit my father and to engage in a good-faith process to establish appropriate conditions. That requires compliance with the obligation to engage in the ADA interactive process and to reassess current conditions based on individualized factors rather than blanket restrictions. In addition, during the April 14 care plan meeting, it was stated that my father has a phone in his room but that its functionality was unclear. Ms. Routson indicated she would obtain that information. Please provide clarification on that as well. Accordingly, please confirm: When the ADA interactive process will be initiated Who will be participating in that process e When an individualized assessment of visitation will be conducted e Whether my support person will be permitted as a reasonable accommodation ¢ The status and functionality of the phone in my father's room, including how he may be directly reached The continued failure to engage in the ADA process and reassess current conditions is preventing meaningful access and participation and is causing ongoing harm. am requesting a direct response to these items. Please confirm receipt of this communication. Sincerely, Chamolin Rockefeller
Get Outlook for iOS
:/foutlook.live.com/mail/sentitems/id/AAkKALgAAAAAAHY QDEapmEc2byACgAC%2FEWgOABys4gMm3YUCZKCYPcHgUWgAJHcOXFWAA Page |
Exhibit F Plaintiff's Written Statement Regarding April 14, 2026 Incident
WRITTEN STATEMENT Date: Name: Chamolin Rockefeller On April 14, 2026, | was present at Northeast Center for Rehabilitation and Brain Injury in Lake Katrine, New York, for a scheduled care plan meeting regarding my father, Alfred J. Rockefeller Ill. While | was present, a facility administrator, Julie Carroll, placed a call to law enforcement in front of myself and my support person. During that call, she stated that there was an individual at the facility who was subject to a restraining order. Law enforcement responded to the facility. Upon arrival, the same statement was made to the responding officers — that a restraining order was in place against my support person. Both my support person and | clearly stated to law enforcement that she was present in her role as my ADA support person. The responding officers checked and stated that there was no active restraining order in place. Despite this, my support person was removed from the premises. personally witnessed law enforcement remove her from a seated position. She is elderly and disabled, and during the removal, items from her purse fell to the floor. As a direct result of these events, | was unable to have my ADA support person present during the care plan meeting and was forced to proceed without the accommodation necessary for me to meaningfully participate as a person with disabilities. This caused significant distress and impaired my ability to engage in my father’s care planning. am requesting that this incident be formally documented. Based on what | personally witnessed, a false statement was made to law enforcement regarding the existence of a restraining order. Such conduct may fall under New York Penal Law § 240.50, which prohibits falsely reporting an incident. This false report directly resulted in the removal of an elderly disabled individual and the denial of my federally protected ADA accommodation. am able to provide additional information and supporting material, including recordings, if needed. □ /
Chamolin Rockefeller
Exhibit G Ulster County Sheriff Contact Card and Case Number (2026-07800)
A SHERIFF’S OFFICE << SS Y@y 2 £0 Utster County as »\ EMMETT VEDDER III CRIMINAL Div. 24 Hours oe 8 Main: oe wee KINGSTON, NY 12401 HITS ESERIES EVDD@CO.ULSTER.NY.US CHS036- 0 TH) Download our FREE mobile app today! fe) ee Be [a] agire ey BA Us ea AT □□□ iets Pa ee 815- 340- 43/9
AL QO ab 0) S00
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chamolin Rockefeller, Plaintiff, v. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:25-cv-05210 (KMK)
PROPOSED ORDER Upon consideration, it is hereby: ORDERED that: 1. Defendants shall engage in a good-faith ADA interactive process within seven (7) days; 2. Plaintiff shall be permitted to attend care plan meetings; 3. Plaintiff shall be permitted to have a support person present; 4. Defendants shall restore meaningful visitation access under non-arbitrary conditions; 5. Defendants shall provide Plaintiff with a written individualized assessment supporting any restrictions; 6. Defendants shall not retaliate against Plaintiff; 7. No bond shall be required pursuant to Rule 65(c); This Order shall remain in effect pending further order of the Court. SO ORDERED:
Hon. Kenneth M. Karas United States District Judge Dated: