Burley et al v. Chapman

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MCKAY BURLEY and TYSON THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
8:24-CV-716
v. 	(AMN/DJS)
CHARLES J. CHAPMAN,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
CNY FAIR HOUSING, INC. 	CONOR J. KIRCHNER, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
731 James Street, Suite 200
Syracuse, NY 13203
Charles J. Chapman, pro se
Massena, New York
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 29, 2024, Plaintiffs McKay Burley (“Plaintiff Burley”) and Tyson
Thomas (“Plaintiff Thomas,” and collectively with Plaintiff Burley, “Plaintiffs”) filed a
civil Complaint against their neighbor, Charles Chapman (“Defendant Chapman” or
“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 1, Compl. The Complaint alleges a course of harassing conduct
by Defendant Chapman that was both persistent and severe. 	Compl. ¶¶ 9-42. 	The
Complaint alleges three separate causes of action: (1) a violation of the Fair Housing Act
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 18

- 2 -
of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., for making discriminatory statements with respect to
the sale of the dwelling, and intimidating, threatening, and interfering with enjoyment of
a dwelling based upon sexual orientation; (2) a violation of New York State Executive
Law § 296(5)(a)(3) & (7) for essentially the same conduct; and (3) a state law claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Compl. ¶¶ 44-49.
The Complaint was served on Defendant Chapman on or about June 17, 2024.
Dkt. No. 4. He did not appear in the lawsuit and did not answer the Complaint against
him. See Docket. Pursuant to Local Rule 55.2, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested an entry of
default, and that request was granted by the Clerk of the Court on August 23, 2024. Dkt.
Nos. 5-6. 	Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Default Judgment on September 26, 2024.
Dkt. No. 8. Defendant Chapman did not file any opposition to the Motion. See Docket.
On September 9, 2025, the District Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and
Order (“MDO”), which denied in part and granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion. Dkt. No. 9,
MDO. 	In reviewing its jurisdiction and the legal standards applicable to the claims
asserted, the District Court concluded that no Fair Housing Act claim had been stated
because the statute proscribes discriminatory statements made with respect to the sale or
rental of a dwelling. MDO at p. 8. In the present matter, however, Defendant’s conduct
began in April of 2023, only after Plaintiffs purchased the property in November of 2022
and Defendant moved into the neighboring property as a tenant in February of 2023. Id.;
Compl. ¶¶ 8-10. The Court therefore concluded that no claim under §3604(c) of the Fair
Housing Act was made out and dismissed that portion of the Complaint. MDO at p. 9.
Similarly, the District Court dismissed the Fair Housing Act claim premised upon § 3617.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 18

- 3 -
Id. at pp. 11-12. The Court also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claim under New York State Human
Rights Law based upon similar reasoning, and for the additional reason that the statute in
question did not impose liability on mere neighbors. Id. at p. 13.
As to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, however, the Court
concluded that the Complaint sufficiently alleged conduct that could be characterized as
extreme and outrageous behavior, and which was motivated by the requisite intent, and
therefore an IIED claim was stated. Id. at pp. 14-15. As to that claim, the Court issued a
default, finding the Defendant liable. Id.
Based upon the foregoing, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion in
connection with the state law IIED claim, retained jurisdiction, and sent the matter to the
undersigned to hold a damage inquest hearing. Id. at pp. 15-16.
II. THE DAMAGE HEARING
On December 11, 2025, a Damage Inquest Hearing (the “Hearing”) was held in
Syracuse, New York, at which time both Plaintiffs testified at length, and the Court heard
from the defaulting Defendant. See Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”), Dkt. No. 18.
By way of background, during the time period at issue, the Plaintiffs were a gay
couple in a committed relationship who were living together. Tr. at p. 6. They signed a
contract for the purchase of a home on Larue Road in Massena, New York, in mid-
November of 2022 and closed on the home in early January of 2023. Id. at p. 5; Compl.
¶ 8.1 Plaintiffs were looking forward to relocating, with Plaintiff Burley’s parents living
1 At the Hearing, Plaintiff Burley noted that, at the present time, he is the owner of the property, with his father as
cosigner on the mortgage. Tr. at p. 5.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 18

- 4 -
in the same area. Tr. at pp. 6-7 & 62. According to the testimony at the Hearing, Plaintiffs
were initially met by pleasant and welcoming neighbors. 	Id. at pp. 7-9 & 62-63.
However, in or about February of 2023, about a month after Plaintiffs moved in,
Defendant also relocated to the house next door to Plaintiffs, which was owned by
Defendant’s sister. Id. at pp. 8 & 10. Shortly thereafter, upon learning that his neighbors
were a gay couple, Defendant began a stream of homophobic statements and harassing
conduct toward Plaintiffs. Id. at pp. 8-72; Compl. ¶¶ 10-34.
Defendant’s conduct is generally outlined in a journal prepared by Plaintiffs,
admitted as Exhibit P-10, as well as several videos that were also submitted at the
Hearing, including Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-8, and P-9. Regarding the duration and evidence
of the conduct, the Court concludes that the journal and the videos represent the best
evidence as to the nature and scope of Defendant’s actions. As testified at the Hearing,
both Plaintiffs understood the necessity of documenting the specific harassing conduct so
that they could provide evidence to the authorities if necessary. Tr. at pp. 20, 24-25, &
39-41. In addition, Plaintiffs installed cameras with audio recording capability, and while
they allege that Defendant entered their property and cut the cord of one of the security
cameras, that electrical cord was then replaced, and the cameras functioned as intended.
Id. at pp. 25-30.
When asked how many times Plaintiffs had a negative interaction with Defendant,
Plaintiff Burley estimated that Plaintiffs had over a hundred negative interactions with
Defendant over the two years since they moved in. Id. at p. 12. Plaintiffs’ written journal,
which was presented as evidence and discussed at the Hearing, details over sixty specific
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 18

- 5 -
incidents involving Defendant, with the earliest one being recorded on April 24, 2023,
and the last event being recorded on August 28, 2023.2 Exhibit P-10.
Defendant’s conduct varied in severity. 	During one of the first incidents, on or
about April 28, 2023, while Plaintiff Burley was taking his puppy outside, Defendant
yelled at him and called him a “fag.”3 	Id. at p. 1; Compl. ¶ 12. 	Plaintiff felt unsafe,
retreated to inside his home, and called the police. Exhibit P-10 at pp. 1-2; Compl. ¶¶ 13-
14. The police interviewed Defendant, who stated that he suffered from a psychosis and
that his therapists told him that narrating out loud would help him cope with his
symptoms. Exhibit P-10 at p. 2.
On April 30, 2023, Defendant called the police and claimed that Plaintiff Burley
had gone on his property and let the air out of the tires of his vehicle. See id. Plaintiffs
denied these claims. See id.
On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff Burley was packing his vehicle for a weekend trip
when he overheard Defendant yell: “Faggot, I’ll bash your skull open!” Id. at p. 3; Compl.
¶ 15; Tr. at p. 42. 	Two days later, on May 14, 2023, after the Plaintiffs returned from
their trip, Defendant threatened to fight Plaintiffs and stated: “Let’s rumble. Let’s fight,
guys!” Exhibit P-10 at p. 3; Compl. ¶ 17; Tr. at p. 43.
2 As noted hereafter, Plaintiffs sought police intervention, and, as a result, two separate orders of protection were
issued by the local Courts and Defendant was arrested in August of 2023 and January of 2024. See Exhibits P-2 &
P-3. After that last event, in which Defendant served a short time in jail, the “legal” harassment stopped. See Tr. at
p. 14.
3 The statements of the Defendant recorded in the journal and the videos were replete with vulgarity. Some of these
comments are contained verbatim in the hearing transcript. See generally Tr. Those words will only be repeated in
this Report-Recommendation and Order in a limited fashion, so as to hint as to the level of animosity and
homophobia exhibited by the Defendant.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 18

- 6 -
On May 16, 2023, while Plaintiff Burley took the dog out, Defendant yelled
profanities twice. 	Exhibit P-10 at p. 3. 	Later that day, Plaintiffs installed the camera
system, and while doing so heard Defendant say: “It only takes one bullet.” Id. at pp. 3-
4. 	Plaintiff Burley took time off from work that day to attempt to get mental health
assistance, which was not successful. See id.; Tr. at pp. 43-44.
The next day, on May 17, 2023, when Plaintiff Thomas was dropped off from
work, Defendant shouted: “What is this guy doing getting home so late? Don’t go running
inside.” Exhibit P-10 at p. 4. Later that day, when Plaintiff Thomas went to let the dogs
out, he heard Defendant narrating out loud exactly what Plaintiff Thomas was wearing.
Id. Plaintiff Thomas thereafter went inside and turned on music to attempt to drown out
sounds from Defendant. Id.
On May 18, 2023, Defendant Chapman commented about Plaintiff Burley’s family
members who were visiting Plaintiffs’ home and implied it was some sort of drug deal.
Id. at p. 5; Tr. at p. 45. 	Plaintiff Burley testified that Defendant Chapman’s behavior
made him apprehensive to bring people to his house. Tr. at pp. 45-46.
On May 19, 2023, Defendant continued to yell at Plaintiffs and accused Plaintiffs
of damaging his property. See Exhibit P-10 at p. 5. At one point, when Plaintiff Burley
took Plaintiffs’ dog out, Defendant Chapman continued to harass him and indicated that,
if the dog went on his yard, the dog “would go flying.” 	Id. at p. 6. 	Defendant further
“stated he c[ould] bully [Plaintiffs] all he wants from his window.” Id. The police were
then called by Plaintiffs. 	Id. 	Plaintiff Burley expressed that he was nervous because
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 18

- 7 -
Plaintiffs had experienced “an uptick in incidences” from Defendant Chapman. Tr. at p.
47.
On May 20, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas was harassed by Defendant, who was yelling:
“You little sissy, if you want to be a man and act like a man, I’ll treat you like one, I’ll f[]
you up!” and “Come over the fence and I’ll f[] you up.” Exhibit P-10 at p. 6. On May
22, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas was taking the dogs out, and Defendant yelled: “I’m gonna
slice you” and “It’s okay to stare!” Id. at p. 8.
On May 27, 2023, Plaintiff Burley’s father visited the residence, at which time he
heard Defendant yelling profanities and shouting. See Exhibit P-6; Compl. ¶ 19; see also
Tr. at pp. 31-35. 	In the video of the interaction, which did not involve the Plaintiffs,
Defendant swore at Plaintiff Burley’s father and shouted: “Homophobia is the word.
Homo-phob-i-a!” Exhibit P-6; Compl. ¶ 19; see Tr. at pp. 31-35.
On June 4, 2023, Defendant yelled to Plaintiff Burley: “It’d be like shooting clay
pigeons ‘pow.’” Exhibit P-10 at p. 8; Tr. at p. 48. Plaintiff Burley testified about how he
perceived this comment as a threat of physical violence against him. See Tr. at p. 48; see
also Exhibit P-10 at p. 8.
On several occasions, including on June 5, 2023, and June 6, 2023, Defendant
“flipped off” Plaintiffs as he drove by the house. 	See Exhibit P-10 at p. 8. 	Defendant
would also regularly shout and yell from his house at all hours, including on June 7, 2023,
at approximately 5:45 AM and 6:45 AM, and on June 18, 2023, at approximately 11:30
PM. See id. at p. 9; Exhibit P-7.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 18

- 8 -
On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas brought his dog outside and heard Defendant
Chapman yelling at him that Plaintiffs “got a big gay house” and that Plaintiffs should
“open a book” because, according to Defendant, Plaintiffs “need to learn to be straight.”
Exhibit P-10 at p. 9.
On June 18, 2023, Defendant Chapman yelled at Plaintiff Thomas: “You want a
homophobic slur? Faggot!”; “I’m done playing your games, faggot!” Id.; Compl. ¶ 20.
Defendant was also recorded yelling obscenities and stating: “Don’t spread your
homosexuality on me!” Exhibit P-7.
On June 20, 2023, Defendant Chapman suggested that he and Plaintiff Burley
fight, and again yelled obscenities and slurs at Plaintiff Thomas. Compl. ¶ 22; Exhibit P-
10 at p. 10.
On June 22, 2023, Defendant Chapman yelled from his porch commenting on
Plaintiff Thomas’s every move, and told him to grow up and take accountability for his
actions. Exhibit P-10 at p. 11. Later in the day, Defendant Chapman yelled at Plaintiff
Thomas, and said it was wrong for Plaintiff Thomas and Plaintiff Burley to be together
and have sex. Id.
The next day, on June 23, 2023, Defendant Chapman berated Plaintiff Burley
while he was in the yard with his dog and stated that he would not stop bullying Plaintiffs
until they move. 	Id. at p. 11; Exhibit P-8. 	Importantly, at this time, Defendant also
threatened to drive his truck through Plaintiffs’ front door. See P-10 at p. 11.
On June 25, 2023, Defendant harassed a visitor, Nita Jacobs, at Plaintiffs’
residence. Id. at p. 12.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 18

- 9 -
On July 6, 2023, Defendant told Plaintiff Burley a story about running someone
over with a vehicle, “a 2000 lb weapon.” Id. at p. 14. Defendant referred to Plaintiff as
“fag boy” and threatened to run his vehicle into Plaintiffs’ front door. Id. Defendant also
got in his vehicle and “revved the engine multiple times.” Id.
On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff Thomas went outside to get mail and Defendant called
Plaintiff Thomas a slur and threatened to kill him. Id. at p. 17. A video on July 27, 2023,
records the following statements by Defendant Chapman:
Fuck you, you fucking faggot. 	I’m going to kill you fucking dead. 	Fuck you.
Fuck you up over here, faggot. I’m gonna run you the fuck over. Go out on the
street, motherfucker. Call your fucking cops. . . . Why you got your fucking truck
in front of the door faggot? 	So I don’t fucking run . . . my truck through your
fucking door? . . . . I’m gonna fucking kill you, fucker.
Exhibit P-9.
The local police were called after the July 27, 2023, incident, and the Defendant
was charged with the misdemeanor of Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree, in
violation of § 240.30 of the Penal Law of the State of New York. See Exhibits P-2 & P-
3; see also Compl. ¶ 29. A temporary “stay away” Order of Protection was issued on July
27, 2023, and a final “refrain from” Order of Protection was handed up on March 27,
2024. 	See Exhibits P-2 & P-3. 	It appears that the Defendant violated the Order of
Protection on several occasions, including by making additional threats to kill gay people
on August 1, 2023. See Compl. ¶ 31; Tr. at pp. 21-24. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendant was also charged with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree at least
four times. Compl. ¶¶ 31-33. The Defendant pled guilty to multiple misdemeanors, and
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 18

- 10 -
his probationary sentence increased to three years. Id. at ¶ 32; Tr. at pp. 82-83. He also
served some time in jail for his conduct in relation to the Plaintiffs. Tr. at p. 82.
Through their testimony, Plaintiffs provided background information concerning
what it was like to grow up gay. 	Id. at pp. 8 & 63. 	Plaintiff Burley noted that he and
Plaintiff Thomas were in a committed relationship prior to and while living together next
to Defendant Chapman, and that they remained together until October of this year. Id. at
pp. 6 & 56-57. He maintains that at least part of the reason for the ending of their four
year long relationship was the stress caused by the conduct of Defendant. Id.
Plaintiff Burley testified at length regarding the severe and pervasive harassment
to which he was subjected by his neighbor because he is gay. 	Faced with what was
presented as an unrelenting attack on the sanctity of their home, both he and Plaintiff
Thomas did attempt to take action to protect themselves, including: installing cameras on
the property; taking notes of the events; requesting police assistance on a regular basis;
having family members attempt to intervene; and finally reaching out to the Defendant’s
sister for assistance. Id. at pp. 11-61. All of these acts were unsuccessful, at least until
the point when the Defendant was charged criminally and placed upon a three-year term
of probation. Id. at pp. 14 & 19-20.
Defendant’s actions had an extremely negative impact on Plaintiffs. 	Plaintiff
Burley testified regarding how the conduct affected his quality of life, including the loss
of feeling safe in his own home. 	Id. at pp. 35 & 50. 	Plaintiff Burley further testified
about the physical manifestations of his stress, which resulted in constant fear, including:
muscle tension, inability to concentrate, difficulty sleeping, agitation and irritability,
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 18

- 11 -
shutting down, exhaustion, feelings of inadequacy, and the fear of inviting anyone over
to his home because they might be subjected to Defendant’s harassing conduct. Id. at pp.
14-20, 38, & 44; Exhibit P-1. 	Both Plaintiff Burley and Plaintiff Thomas intended to
grow a garden and maintain the exterior of their home and property, but Defendant’s
conduct severely impacted their practical ability to do so. Tr. at pp. 54-55. Indeed, neither
Plaintiff was able to go outside, even to bring their dog out, without the potential for being
subjected to abuse by Defendant. Plaintiff Burley testified that his home life also had a
negative impact upon his ability to concentrate at work, and that he was issued a warning
due to excessive absenteeism. Id. at pp. 51-53; Exhibit P-12. Plaintiff Burley sought out
mental health counseling, and had three sessions at Inner Lakes Therapy, LLC. Tr. at pp.
57-59; Exhibit P-13. However, no counseling records were provided at the hearing, nor
was any expert evidence provided.
As noted above, most of the significant acts of harassment occurred in middle to
late 2023, but there was sporadic evidence of violations of the Order of Protection after
that date. Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-11, for example, details limited misconduct that occurred
in February, May, and June of 2024. 	Plaintiff Burley’s affidavit, Exhibit P-1, also
explains conduct which occurred after the commencement of this civil action against
Defendant Chapman, including Defendant Chapman flicking his porch lights on and off.
Plaintiff Thomas also testified regarding the impact of Defendant Chapman’s
conduct on him. 	He explained the limited abuse that he suffered as a young gay male
growing up on the Akwesasne Reservation, but noted that it paled in comparison to the
abuse perpetuated by Defendant Chapman. 	Tr. at p. 63. 	The stress of that ongoing
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 18

- 12 -
situation also manifested itself at his job, which he described as high paced. Id. at pp. 67-
70; Exhibit P-14 ¶ 5. 	However, no adverse employment action was ever taken against
him. Tr. at pp. 67-69. Plaintiff Thomas complained of having a general unease while at
home, being anxious, pacing back and forth, having a loss of appetite, and feeling unsafe.
Id. at pp. 64-72; Exhibit P-14 ¶ 4. The Court does also note that, in the video submitted
for consideration as Exhibit P-9, it was Plaintiff Thomas who is outside being berated by
Defendant Chapman while walking the dog. Tr. at pp. 70-71.
Finally, Defendant Charles Chapman appeared for the hearing and requested an
opportunity to be heard, which was granted. His testimony was relatively forthright but
was limited by the Court because a default judgment has already been granted on the issue
of liability. At the hearing, Defendant Chapman explained that, during the relevant time
period, he was in constant pain because of a preexisting shoulder injury. Tr. at pp. 77-78.
He further noted that he was treating for bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress
disorder. 	Id. at pp. 82-84; Exhibits D-1 & D-2. 	He is disabled and his only source of
income is approximately $900 per month for Social Security disability benefits. 	Tr. at
pp. 81 & 86. He rents the house on Larue Road in Massena from his sister for $240 per
month. Id. at pp. 76-77 & 85-86.
Defendant Chapman did not specifically deny any of the conduct testified to by
the Plaintiffs or set forth in their Exhibits. See id. at p. 79. He confirmed that the voice
in the videos was his. Id. He explained that he is extremely angry, and that he manifests
his anger toward everyone, not simply the Plaintiffs. Id. at p. 78. He also acknowledged
that he was charged with misdemeanors because of his conduct against the Plaintiffs and
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 12 of 18

- 13 -
pled guilty, that he served a short jail sentence, and his probationary period has been
extended from one to three years due to violations. 	Id. at pp. 82-83. 	He elected not to
cross examine the Plaintiffs and was compliant with all Court directives.
III. DAMAGES
A. Compensatory Damages
Because of the Default, and the testimony at the Hearing, each Plaintiff is entitled
to an award of compensatory damages. 	It is well established in New York that “[o]ne
who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe
emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress.” Freihofer
v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135 (1985) (quotation omitted). The appropriate award for
damages, however, requires a careful analysis of the facts as well as existing case law.
“As the Second Circuit has explained, ‘[a]wards for mental and emotional distress
are inherently speculative,’ as ‘[t]here is no objective way to assign any particular dollar
value to distress.’” Sung-Ho Hwang v. Grace Rd. Church, 2018 WL 4921638, at *5
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018) (quoting Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140, 162
(2d Cir. 2014)). “Nonetheless, the court ‘has an obligation to ensure that such awards for
intangibles be fair, reasonable, predictable, and proportionate.’” 	Id. (quoting Turley v.
ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d at 162). 	“[T]he analysis in each [case] is highly fact-
specific and subjective.” Id. (citing cases, including Mitchell v. Giambruno, 35 A.D. 3d
1040, 1041 (3d Dep’t 2006)).
The Court was impressed by the testimony of both Plaintiffs in this matter. They
were faced with a neighbor that engaged in consistently offensive conduct that was
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 13 of 18

- 14 -
targeted at their sexual orientation for several months. While the Defendant testified that
he was generally angry with everyone, it is clear to the Court that his conduct in this case
was motivated in large part by his homophobia. 	The conduct was also directed at the
Plaintiffs’ home, which is particularly disturbing given that such a location is intended to
be a refuge from difficult situations. 	The Plaintiffs testified thoughtfully and exhibited
significant maturity and common sense in dealing with the situation, including protecting
themselves by placing cameras, taking notes, routinely invoking the assistance of the local
police authorities, and attempting to de-escalate the conflict. 	The Court could tell that
both Plaintiffs were affected by Defendant’s conduct, and Plaintiff Burley was visibly
affected by the appearance of Defendant Chapman in the courtroom.
On the other hand, there was no testimony regarding any medical treatment or
counseling as a result of what the Plaintiffs sustained. While the situation no doubt caused
strain, there was also no evidence that the Plaintiffs’ multi-year relationship ended solely
or primarily as a result of Defendant Chapman’s conduct. There was no evidence of any
lost wages or significant misconduct at work caused by Defendant Chapman’s actions.
While Plaintiff Burley attended three counseling sessions in December of 2024, see
Exhibit P-13; P-10 at pp. 55-56, no proof was presented as to what was discussed during
the sessions, nor was any evidence from a medical provider provided by either Plaintiff.
New York State courts have described this level of damage as garden-variety emotional
trauma, a term that is not meant to disparage what the two Plaintiffs in this case went
through, but only to compare it with similar cases wherein “the evidence of mental
anguish is limited to the plaintiff’s testimony and there is no evidence of medical
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 14 of 18

- 15 -
treatment.” Lation v. Fetner Props., Inc., 2018 WL 704397, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018)
(citation omitted).
Two New York cases are comparable. In Mitchell v. Giambruno, plaintiffs, who
were a same-sex couple, sued their neighbors for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. 	826 N.Y.S.2d 788, 789 (3d Dep’t 2006). 	According to plaintiffs, “for
approximately two years, defendants conducted . . . a relentless campaign of lewd
comments and intimidation directed at plaintiffs and their lifestyle, both in private and in
public.” Id. At trial, medical staff “testified that [plaintiffs’] level of anxiety increased
as did the depth of their depression as they continued to complain about defendants’
conduct, the necessity of retaining counsel, the lawsuit[,] and the trial.” Id. “As a result
of a jury verdict,” one plaintiff “was awarded the sum of $50,000” and the second plaintiff
“was awarded $35,000.” Id. at 789.
In Bell v. Helmsley, the plaintiff, who was homosexual, sued the owner of the entity
that he worked for claiming “violations of New York human rights statutes preventing
sexual orientation discrimination and hostile work environments, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, slander, and trespass.” 2003 WL 26064008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.
Feb. 4, 2003). 	According to plaintiff, defendant “ma[de] disparaging, homophobic
remarks, search[ed] his room at the hotel, and us[ed] gay slurs.” 	Id. 	The jury awarded
plaintiff $30,000 for past pain, suffering, and emotional distress and $24,000 for future
pain, suffering, and emotional distress. Id.
In the Court’s view, an award of damages in the general range identified by the
above cases, but slightly lower due to the unique facts identified above, is appropriate.
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 15 of 18

- 16 -
Accordingly, the Court recommends an award in favor of Plaintiff McKay Burley in the
amount of $25,000, and award in favor of Plaintiff Tyson Thomas in the amount of
$15,000.
B. Punitive Damages
A separate request has been made by Plaintiffs to have the Court award Plaintiffs
punitive damages. 	See Compl. at p. 9. 	While the standard for such an award is high,
punitive damages have been awarded in cases involving defamation and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. 	Prozeralik v. Cap. Cities Commc’ns, Inc., 82 N.Y.2d
466, 479-80 (1993); Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffrey T.M., 159 A.D.2d 52, 58 (2d Dep’t 1990),
aff’d sub nom. Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffery T.M., 77 N.Y.2d 981 (1991). Punitive damages
can be awarded where the defendant acted maliciously, which, in other words, means that
the defendant acted “with deliberate intent to injure or out of hatred, ill will, or spite or
with . . . wanton or reckless disregard of another’s rights.” Carroll v. Trump, 731 F. Supp.
3d 626, 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2024), aff’d, 151 F.4th 50 (2d Cir. 2025) (quotations omitted)
(cleaned up). That standard was clearly met in this case.
However, the decision to award punitive damages is discretionary and not
mandatory. 	Binghamton Plaza, Inc. v. Gilinsky, 32 A.D.2d 994 (3d Dep’t 1969). 	In
making that determination, the factfinder may consider the Defendant’s circumstances
and, in particular, his financial ability to pay such an award. See In re Sturman, 2011 WL
4472412, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2011). 	Having listened to the testimony and
considered the particular facts, the Court does not believe an award of punitive damages
in this case is appropriate. The Court makes this finding for several reasons. As explained
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 16 of 18

- 17 -
by the Defendant himself, he essentially has no money other than Social Security
disability benefits, which are extremely low. 	See Tr. at pp. 81 (“I’m living on Social
Security, $900 a month, . . . . I’m barely getting by . . . .”) & 86 (stating that Defendant
receives $969 a month in disability and pays rent in the amount of $240 a month to his
sister). He has issues with chronic pain and bipolar disorder. See id. at pp. 77-78 & 82-
84. 	Further, the Defendant’s misconduct in this case has been addressed by criminal
action, including two orders of protection, a sentence of probation, and a short period of
incarceration. See id. at pp. 82-83. This has apparently resulted in the desired correction
of Defendant’s conduct. 	See id. at p. 12 (stating that Plaintiffs’ issues with Defendant
stopped approximately one year ago when the order of protection was put in place, but
noting that Defendant violated the order of protection). In the Court’s view, imposing an
uncollectible punitive damage award would not have any desired effect, and therefore is
not recommended.
IV. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that the District Court enter a judgment in favor of the
Plaintiffs and against the Defendant Charles Chapman for compensatory damages in the
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for Plaintiff McKay Burley and
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for Plaintiff Tyson Thomas; and it is further
RECOMMENDED, that the District Court not enter an award of punitive
damages against Charles Chapman; and it is
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 17 of 18

- 18 -
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)4 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED. R. C IV. P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: 	January 12, 2026
Albany, NY
4 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV . P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 8:24-cv-00716-AMN-DJS Document 19 Filed 01/12/26 Page 18 of 18