MTA-contracted driver sexually attacks disabled woman: suit
'I will never forget his face,' Deshawn Curley, 54, said of her accused assaulter — who allegedly later told her he 'just got carried away.''
8 Deshawn Curley is suing the MTA's Access-A-Ride program after one of its drivers allegedly sexually assaulted her twice on a ride home.
Stephen Yang
Advertisement
Curley — a 54-year-old former Postal Service worker who has a nerve disability that makes traveling by train difficult — says in her Queens suit that her nightmare unfolded when she called for an Access-A-Ride on Feb. 4.
A White Tesla pulled up with Kakha Chomakhidze behind the wheel to take Curley from LaGuardia Community College, where she was taking healthcare classes, back to her home in Flushing, the suit says.
8 The lawsuit claims that driver Kakha Chomakhidze touched the plaintiff's inner thigh twice as he drove her home.
Kaxa Chomaxidze /Facebook
Advertisement
Curley said she told Chomakhidze he was late.
'He said, on his translator on his phone, that he didn't speak English,' she told The Post in an exclusive interview.
The Russian-speaking driver then began using a translation app to tell her, 'I like black girls' multiple times as he drove them slowly along the Long Island Expressway, claims her suit against Access-A-Ride, which is run by the state and city taxpayer-funded Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
'I turned up my nose, and I was like, 'Just drive,' ' Curley told The Post.
Advertisement
8 'I was crying,' Curley recalled of her alleged ride from hell.
Stephen Yang
But he kept speaking into his phone, translating over and over the same message, 'I like black girls' and asking her if she wanted to sit in the front seat, which she refused to do, she said.
He then reached back with his right arm and touched the inside of her thigh, her suit says.
8 A text exchange between Curley and the MTA-contracted driver shows he apologized for his actions, according to her lawsuit.
Queens Supreme Court
Advertisement
'I was like — do not do that again,' Curley told The Post.
Chomakhidze continued to make crude remarks through his phone app — then soon reached for her leg the second time, court documents claim.
8 Access-A-Ride provides paratransit for thousands of disabled New Yorkers.
MTA
'I grabbed [his hand], and I said: 'I asked you not to do that — and you did it again,'' Curley told The Post.
'I'm so angry,' Curley recalled. 'My anxiety was on 100, my head started hurting.
'I was crying. I was like, 'No.' I'm like, no, that's not right for him to put his hands between my legs — not once, but freaking twice.'
Curley told The Post that after finally arriving home and fleeing the car, she still had the driver's number and texted him the next day expressing her disbelief.
8 Chomaxidze allegedly sent an apologetic text the day after the incident.
Kaxa Chomaxidze /Facebook
Advertisement
He replied, 'I just got carried away, I apologize,' her suit says.
Curley filed a police report and called the MTA and was told he would be fired, court documents say.
But Curley's suit says it took three phone calls and a month for Access-A-Ride to confirm he was gone.
'The first time they said, 'We did an investigation, and the driver said that you're lying,' ' Curley told The Post.
Advertisement
8 Curley's suit says it took three phone calls and a month for Access-A-Ride to confirm the accused driver had been fired.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
The disabled passenger was so traumatized that for months, she couldn't return to her continued-learning classes, where she was training to be a community health worker after her disability got worse years ago and forced her to retire, court documents say.
'I will not forget it,' Curley said of her experience, 'And it messed me up so bad, I didn't want to go to school no more.
'Who's to say that I'm the only person he did that to,' Curley added. 'He was too comfortable.'
Advertisement
Curley's lawyer, Mark Shirian, said, 'This case is about more than just one driver — it's about a system that utterly failed to protect a vulnerable passenger from sexual assault.
'When she bravely reported the assault, she was met with silence. Only after she presented written proof of the driver's admission did the companies involved act — weeks too late.'
The MTA did not respond to a Post request for comment, but the contracted car service that Chomakhidze worked for, Belle-Rock, said he was fired after the alleged incident.
8 'When she bravely reported the assault, she was met with silence' for too long, said her lawyer, Mark Shiran.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Advertisement
Chomakhidze was unable to be reached for comment by The Post.
A pair of women at a Queens apartment listed online for the driver said the defendant does not live there but occasionally stops by to collect his mail.
Chomakhidze meanwhile did not respond to Post texts or calls to the phone number attached to the text he allegedly sent Curley.
Curley told The Post she hopes her lawsuit can push the handicapped-aid service to do better for disabled New Yorkers.
'When it happened to me, I couldn't advocate for myself at that time because I was in shock and I just took a step back,' she said.
'I'm complaining about somebody touching me, assaulting me, touching me between my thighs,' she said. 'They don't care.
'Just because you're disabled and you have Medicaid, they feel that low-income and stuff like that … no — I worked all my life, and I've been working since I've been disabled.'
-Additional reporting by Reuven Fenton
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.'
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms , many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Appeals court keeps in place restrictions on immigration stops in L.A. based on language and job
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Friday kept in place a Los Angeles federal judge's ruling that bars immigration agents from using a person's spoken language or job, like day laborer, as the sole pretext to detain people. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in its ruling said that there seemed to be one issue with U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's temporary restraining order, but it did not overturn it as the government sought. The appeals court said that one part of the July 11 temporary restraining order did appear to be vague. "Defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments," the court ruled, referring to the U.S. government. Frimpong, a judge at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, issued the temporary restraining order after a lawsuit was filed by people who claimed they were detained by immigration officers without good reason. Three people were waiting at a bus stop for jobs when they were detained by immigration officials, and two others are U.S. citizens who claim they were stopped and aggressively questioned despite telling agents they were citizens. Other organizations, including the United Farm Workers, also sued. Frimpong wrote in the temporary restraining order ruling that the people suing were 'likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.' The July 11 restraining order bars the detention of people unless the officer or agent 'has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law.' It says they may not base that suspicion solely on a person's apparent race or ethnicity; the fact that they're speaking Spanish or English with an accent; their presence at a particular location like a bus stop or a day laborer pickup site; or the type of work one does. Los Angeles has been targeted by the Trump administration for immigration raids that the city's mayor has decried as a campaign to terrorize residents. The lawsuit that led to the temporary restraining order was filed against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and others. Kyle Harvick, the deputy incident commander for the government's immigration action in Los Angeles, said that "certain types of businesses, including carwashes" were chosen by immigration agents "because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek work at these locations," according to the appeals court ruling. The appeals court found that "the four enumerated factors at issue — apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.'" The appeals court panel said that the government did not dispute constitutional issues when trying to get the temporary restraining order stayed. 'They did not meaningfully dispute the district court's conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion,' the appeals court panel wrote. The appeals court did find that part of Frimpong's temporary order was vague, relating to "except as permitted by law" in the clause about detaining people based on the four factors of race, speaking Spanish, a location or type of work. But it otherwise denied the government's motion for a stay. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, called the appeals court ruling a victory. "Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles," she said in a statement."The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now." The immigration raids launched in Los Angeles in June resulted in large protests in the city, some of which turned violent. The Trump administration sent National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in a move that was condemned by Bass, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and others.
