BY SAL GRECO
New York City has a credibility problem in one of the lawsuits stemming from the embattled Mayor’s Office of Municipal Services and its former senior adviser Timothy Pearson.
And this time, the problem is contained in the City’s own paperwork.
In March, New York City Corporation Counsel determined that Pearson and former NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey had violated agency rules in connection with events alleged in a series of lawsuits and had not been forthcoming or truthful during the City’s representation process.
The City subsequently stopped providing them with publicly funded legal representation.
Now, months later, the City is relying on sworn affidavits from those same two men as it tries to defeat a summary judgment motion filed by NYPD Lieutenant George Huang.
That contradiction is now at the center of an explosive August 13 court filing in Huang v. City of New York, Index No. 155213 / 2024, pending before New York County Supreme Court Justice Lisa S. Headley. Huang is seeking partial summary judgment in litigation involving the City, the New York City Economic Development Corporation, Pearson, Maddrey and Joseph Profeta.
Huang’s attorney, John A. Scola, put the issue plainly in a public statement released August 14:
“The City of New York cannot decide whether Timothy Pearson is a liar or a witness. In this case, it has chosen to treat him as both.”
That may sound like aggressive legal rhetoric, but the documents underlying the statement are far more significant than the sound bite.
The Alleged “Chaperone Directive”
At the center of Huang’s case is an allegation that sounds almost unbelievable: male members of the Mayor’s Office unit were allegedly ordered to make sure Pearson was never left alone with a female employee.
Huang’s August 13 filing calls this the “chaperone directive.”
According to the filing, from approximately December 2022 through April 2023, Huang was assigned by his commanding officer to make certain Pearson was not left alone with women in the office. Huang argues that the directive existed because of concerns surrounding Pearson’s alleged conduct toward Sergeant Roxanne Ludemann.
Most importantly, Huang is not relying solely on his own version of events.
His attorneys say four sworn accounts support the existence of the directive, while City Internal Affairs records allegedly memorialize Huang’s account that Deputy Chief Miltiadis Marmara had advised members of the unit that Pearson “could not be alone with any females from the office.”
Huang argues that Marmara imposed the restriction after allegedly witnessing inappropriate conduct involving Pearson and Ludemann.
Those remain allegations, and Pearson disputes the underlying misconduct.
But the existence of City-generated documents reflecting the alleged directive creates a much more serious problem for the defense than a simple he-said, she-said lawsuit.
This is not just a plaintiff claiming something happened.
According to Huang’s filing, the City’s own Internal Affairs records reflect that the directive was discussed and documented.
Corporation Counsel Pulled the Plug
The second—and arguably more damaging—piece of this story emerged from the New York City Law Department itself.
On March 13, 2026, Corporation Counsel Steven Banks informed Pearson that the City would no longer provide him with legal representation in the related lawsuits.
The letter said Corporation Counsel had “learned information and obtained evidence” establishing that Pearson violated the rules and regulations of his agency in connection with the events alleged in the complaints.
The letter went even further.
Corporation Counsel said Pearson had not been “forthcoming or truthful” in answering certain questions during his representation interview and determined that his acts or omissions connected to the claims violated agency rules.
The City therefore found him ineligible for continued representation.
The collection of City filings submitted in the Huang litigation identifies a corresponding determination concerning Maddrey, stating the same conclusion regarding his eligibility for continued City representation.
That distinction matters.
Corporation Counsel did not issue a judicial finding that Pearson or Maddrey committed sexual harassment, retaliation or any other specific civil-law violation alleged by the plaintiffs.
A judge or jury has not reached those conclusions.
But the City itself did determine that its former officials violated agency rules in connection with the events alleged and had not been forthcoming or truthful.
And that is where the legal contradiction begins.
The City Still Wants Their Affidavits Considered
Despite withdrawing City-funded representation from Pearson and Maddrey, the City has now used sworn affidavits from both men as evidence opposing Huang’s summary judgment motion.
The City filed its opposition on August 12.
In that filing, City attorneys argue that Corporation Counsel’s representation determination does not constitute an adjudication of Huang’s allegations and does not prevent the City from relying on Pearson’s or Maddrey’s sworn denials.
Legally, that is an important argument.
The City maintains that there are multiple reasons an employee can lose representation under General Municipal Law §50-k, including failure to cooperate with City attorneys, and that such a determination should not automatically be treated as proof that every allegation in a lawsuit is true.
Huang’s attorneys respond that they are not asking the court to treat Corporation Counsel’s decision as proof of every allegation.
Instead, they argue that the City cannot credibly tell one court filing that Pearson and Maddrey were not truthful and violated agency rules, remove their publicly funded defense on that basis, and then use their affidavits to create factual disputes when doing so benefits the City.
The August 13 filing describes the situation this way:
The City “determined that Pearson and Maddrey violated agency rules in connection with the very events alleged, found them ‘not forthcoming or truthful,’ and stripped them of their defense — and only then offered their affidavits to manufacture a dispute.”
That is now a question Justice Headley may have to wrestle with.
Pearson’s Affidavit Versus the City’s Records
Huang’s lawyers do not stop at Corporation Counsel’s credibility determination.
They argue that Pearson’s new affidavit is contradicted by records the City itself produced.
Pearson swears that he never touched Sergeant Ludemann.
But according to Huang’s filing, an Internal Affairs record memorializes Marmara’s statement that he personally observed Pearson touch Ludemann inappropriately.
Again, that IAB record reflects Marmara’s account; it is not itself a judicial determination that the touching occurred.
But it creates an obvious factual conflict between Pearson’s sworn denial and evidence located inside a City investigative file.
Pearson also disputes the degree of supervisory authority he exercised over the unit.
Huang’s lawyers counter with what they say are Pearson’s own recorded statements.
The filing states that Pearson acknowledged that he “gave Dep. Chief Marmara the position,” that Marmara “had to answer to him,” and that Pearson supervised approximately 12 to 15 employees.
Huang’s lawyers also point to an IAB record identifying Pearson as the office’s Executive Director and placing Marmara underneath him in the chain of command.
Why does that matter?
Because Pearson’s supervisory status could become significant to Huang’s claims and to the City’s potential liability under the New York City Human Rights Law.
Who Ordered the Transfers?
The contradictions continue over what happened after personnel began leaving the Mayor’s Office unit.
Pearson’s affidavit says he played no role in Marmara’s departure and denies involvement in the reassignments.
Huang’s lawyers say City records tell another story.
Their filing says Pearson admitted relieving Marmara and cites testimony from Assistant Chief Williams that Pearson informed him Ludemann was being transferred.
Then comes one of the most damaging pieces of evidence cited in the entire case.
According to the court filing, Assistant Chief Scott Henderson sent then-Chief of Department Maddrey a message asking:
“I assume you spoke to Pearson, so I am telling Marmara’s SGT to pack her things she’s going back to QS?”
Maddrey allegedly replied:
“Yes send her back, and tell her to keep her mouth shut.”
Huang’s attorneys are using that exchange to support their retaliation theory.
They argue that the text connects Pearson to the reassignment and, more importantly, contains an instruction from the NYPD’s then-highest-ranking uniformed member that an employee should be told to remain silent.
Maddrey’s affidavit, however, characterizes the reassignments as routine and non-retaliatory and denies acting at Pearson’s direction.
Huang’s attorneys argue that Maddrey’s own text contradicts that characterization.
The City Has a Different Version
The City strongly disputes Huang’s interpretation of these events.
Its opposition points to Huang’s April 2023 resignation correspondence and argues that he voluntarily sought to leave the Mayor’s Office unit and return to the NYPD.
The City emphasizes that Huang’s correspondence did not mention sexual harassment, retaliation or a hostile work environment.
It further argues that Huang subsequently received an assignment he himself requested.
The City denies that Huang was demoted, disputes that any alleged chaperone policy was imposed or endorsed by the City, and denies that Pearson or Maddrey retaliated against him.
The City also argues that discovery in the interconnected lawsuits remains incomplete and that competing testimony and evidence create factual disputes that should be decided later rather than through summary judgment.
Those arguments matter.
Summary judgment is a significant remedy because it allows a court to resolve claims without sending disputed factual questions to a trial.
Huang’s burden is therefore not simply to show that his evidence is persuasive.
He is arguing that there is no genuine factual dispute requiring a jury on the specific issues presented.
The City says there very much is.
But the Credibility Question Is Not Going Away
Even accepting the City’s legal distinction between a representation determination and a finding of civil liability, it still faces an uncomfortable factual reality.
Corporation Counsel did not simply say Pearson and Maddrey had become inconvenient clients.
The City said it had obtained evidence that they violated agency rules in connection with the events alleged in the complaints and said they were not forthcoming or truthful.
Then the City submitted their sworn affidavits to defeat Huang’s motion.
Huang’s attorneys are now asking the obvious question:
If the City itself concluded these men were not truthful, why should the court rely on them now?
The City says there is no legal inconsistency because its representation determination does not establish the truth of the plaintiffs’ individual allegations.
Huang argues that the problem is not simply legal.
It is credibility.
And credibility becomes even more difficult when Pearson’s and Maddrey’s sworn accounts are compared with Internal Affairs records, recorded statements, testimony and text messages produced in the litigation.
What Happens Next
The court already permitted Wilson Elser to withdraw from representing Pearson and Maddrey in Huang’s case, giving the former officials time to obtain new counsel.
The City’s own filings state that related matters involving Ludemann, Ferrari and Marmara remain intertwined with the litigation and that a conference in the related cases was scheduled for August 17.
Justice Headley has not ruled that Pearson sexually harassed anyone.
She has not ruled that Maddrey retaliated against anyone.
And she has not yet ruled that Huang is entitled to summary judgment.
Those distinctions should not be lost.
But neither should the significance of what has already entered the public record.
The New York City Law Department determined that two former high-ranking City officials violated agency rules and were not truthful.
The City then returned to court and used those same officials’ sworn testimony to defend itself.
Meanwhile, City Internal Affairs documents cited by Huang appear to conflict with portions of those sworn accounts.
That is no longer simply an allegation made at a press conference or a claim buried inside a civil complaint.
It is a fight being waged using New York City’s own records.
And now the City may have to explain to a judge why witnesses it previously decided it could no longer trust should be trusted when their testimony helps the City avoid liability.