{"active":false,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Diskin","race":"White","gender":"Male","rank":"DT1","command":{"command":"044 DET","assignment_date":"2004-06-02","id":"44det"},"shield_no":3056,"ended_date":"2022-10-03","taxid":"892980","complaint_ids":[201802806,201310449,200508872,200408273,9802255,9003440],"appt_date":"1987-07-28","middle_initial":"E","shield_no_history":[22318],"lawsuits":[{"name":"Aguilar-Cruz, Johnny vs City of Ny, et al.","start_date":"2022-01-10","disposition_date":"2024-10-08","payout_amount":15500,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"800367/2022E","court":"Supreme Court - Bronx","summary":"On January 30, 2020, Plaintiff was lawfully inside his apartment building when he was approached by POs Andre Smith, Michael Diskin, Brian Hennessy, Jason Baker and Christian Flores and 10 other unnamed POs. POs illegally seized and searched Plaintiff and his residence, without his consent. POs then used excessive force to arrest Plaintiff, who told POs he was recovering from a critical stabbing occurring a month prior. POs did not have probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, but targeted him based solely on his status as a Hispanic male and a desire to meet illegal arrest quotas. The excessive force aggravated Plaintiff's injuries. POs took Plaintiff to the 44th Precinct, where he was illegally detained and false charges were brought against him. The charges were later dismissed.","documents":[{"url":"https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ecNS80FzUYHQLO1zqzGVOQ==","type":"complaint"}]},{"name":"Suares, Olivia vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2020-01-21","disposition_date":"2022-09-09","payout_amount":40000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"19CV11327","court":"U.S. District Court - Southern District NY","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael","summary":"On March 23, 2018, P.O.s including Sergeant Flores, Officers Camiglia, Bupp, Veliz, Rubin, Escoto, Paulio, Burgos, and Lee Rubin, Lieutenant Sharbir, and Detectives Jason Baker, Andre Smith, Diskin, and Hennessy, visited Plaintiff’s residence at approximately 4:30 a.m., and rushed in without consent when the door was opened. Some of the defendants were in uniform, while others were not. The officers asked Plaintiff if any gunshots were heard from her home, and informed Plaintiff that someone had been shot in the apartment located under her apartment’s bedroom. Plaintiff responded she had not heard any gunshots. Officers rushed into Plaintiff’s bedroom without consent, where her daughter’s boyfriend and daughter were present. Despite Plaintiff telling them there were no guns in her home, officers falsely insisted that a bullet had emanated from Plaintiff’s apartment, striking someone in the apartment below. \nAfter 30-45 minutes, Plaintiff and her daughter were brought to the Precinct for questioning, and Plaintiff’s daughter’s boyfriend was handcuffed and formally arrested. Plaintiff was shown four bullets that officers claimed were found in her apartment. Plaintiff was held in the Precinct for approximately two hours before being permitted to leave with her daughter. Upon returning home, Plaintiff found NYPD officers still inside her home. Officers told Plaintiff she could not enter her home unless she signed a permission to search form. Plaintiff was compelled under duress to sign the form before being able to re-enter her apartment. Later that evening, Detective Andre Smith called Plaintiff’s daughter back to the Precinct, and Plaintiff accompanied her. Detectives Hennessy and Andre Smith questioned Plaintiff and her daughter about a non-existent hole they claimed to have found in the floor of Plaintiff’s bedroom.\nPlaintiff later received a subpoena from the Bronx D.A.’s office, purporting to require her to testify before a grand jury. On August 16, 2018, Plaintiff arrived at the location stated on the subpoena. Instead of a grand jury, she was met by employees of the D.A.’s office, defendants Nyonyo, ADA Horton, and ADA Zarcone, who tried to get a recorded statement from Plaintiff. When Plaintiff refused to provide information that would help them prosecute Plaintiff’s daughter’s boyfriend, the D.A.’s office sought Plaintiff’s indictment and arrest based upon false and misleading information provided by NYPD. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff was indicted and wrongfully charged of crimes related to the shooting. On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff was arrested at her home by NYPD officers and questioned at the Precinct by Defendants Rivera and Baker. She was booked and held for over a day before being arraigned and released.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.528167/gov.uscourts.nysd.528167.1.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16573033/suares-v-city-of-new-york/"},{"name":"Suares, Olivia vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2019-09-10","disposition_date":"2022-09-09","payout_amount":0,"disposition":"Zero Disposition","docket":"19CV05832","court":"U.S. District Court - Southern District NY","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael","summary":"On March 23, 2018 plaintiff was asleep in her home at 4:30 AM. Police knocked on the door and plaintiff's daughter opened the door. Police barged in explaining someone had been shot the floor below them, although no one had heard any shots. Then NYPD officer Chabert brought plaintiff and her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend in for questioning to the police station. Plaintiff and her daughter were allowed to leave the police station after 2 hours but then the daughter's boyfriend was arrested for shooting a gun causing an injury to someone in the floor below it. Plaintiff was forced to sign a permission to search form before she could enter her apartment - she was forced under duress. Charges were later dropped against plaintiff.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.518041/gov.uscourts.nysd.518041.54.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15817021/suares-v-city-of-new-york/"},{"name":"Baret, Ricardo vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2019-03-28","payout_amount":0,"disposition":"","docket":"023638/2019E","court":"Supreme Court - Bronx","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael","summary":"On March 28, 2016, at approximately 10:00 am, Plaintiff Baret was arrested inside of the 44th NYPD Precinct, located at 2 East 169th Street, Bronx, NY, for the murder of Valentin Medina. The defendants, including NYPD Officers Robert Klein, Norberto Tirado, Luis Salvador, Thomas Michaels, and Michael Diskin, unlawfully arrested, handcuffed, seized, and searched Plaintiff in an excessive manner about his person. On or about the above date, the officers transported Plaintiff to the 46th Precinct where he was illegally questioned and placed in a cell. At the 44th Precinct, the officers, including Officer Tirado, unlawfully and intentionally, using illegal methods, obtained a statement from Plaintiff after he had requested the assistance of counsel. Plaintiff never committed any crimes. The officers were aware at all times that they lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. They used improper and suggestive identification procedures and coercion to unlawfully accuse and arrest Plaintiff of a crime they knew he did not commit. Officer Klein signed the criminal complaint, knowingly and falsely accusing Plaintiff of Murder in the Second Degree. Plaintiff was returned to the 44th Precinct before being taken to Central Booking, where he remained for 24 hours before arraignment. The officers testified in a fraudulent and misleading manner to ensure that he was indicted for murder. The officers falsely forwarded information that a witness observed Plaintiff fire a gunshot that struck Valentine Medina in the back to prosecutors so that a prosecution would be initiated against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff was sent to Rikers Island where he remained until he was acquitted of all charges after trial on March 27, 2018.","documents":[{"url":"https://web.archive.org/web/20240923202058/https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=d5jF7Njt8KIKmMI091h4FA==&__cf_chl_rt_tk=PXePlZiZTF1mu.0UMVT_TY2IixL4h2vJ_KM8RwalQQg-1727122858-0.0.1.1-5694","type":"complaint"}]},{"name":"Jagdeo, Jeremy vs Police Department, Nyc, et al.","start_date":"2015-12-15","disposition_date":"2016-07-07","payout_amount":0,"disposition":"Zero Disposition","docket":"014379/2015","court":"Supreme Court - Kings","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael"},{"name":"Johnson, Latisha vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2015-07-30","disposition_date":"2017-01-27","payout_amount":2671000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"15CV01812","court":"U.S. District Court - Southern District NY","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael","summary":"On October 11, 2005, plaintiff was cited by a transit officer for playing music too loudly. When the officer ran plaintiff's ID, he saw that she was wanted for questioning, and put her in handcuffs. At the precinct, officers denied plaintiff's request to speak to her mother, interrogated plaintiff for 24 hours, denied her food, screamed, pressured her, called her derogatory names, and coerced her into confessing to a crime she did not commit. Detectives investigated indifferently and carelessly, overlooking several signs that plaintiff did not commit the crime.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.439497.17.0.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4354908/johnson-v-the-city-of-new-york/"},{"name":"Blyden, Malisha vs City of New York & Nycpd","start_date":"2015-06-22","disposition_date":"2017-01-27","payout_amount":2671000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"15CV08454","court":"U.S. District Court - Southern District NY","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael","summary":"This complaint entails a suit for wrongful conviction. The Plaintiff was exonerated by the Court after seven (7) years of incarceration following a confession by the true perpetrators. The following summarizes the crime briefly and the investigation that followed. \nOn September 6, 2005, two female sex workers, Jackie and Lace, and five men robbed and shot a man in his apartment. The Plaintiff had no connection to these crimes and no relation to the victim or the true perpetrators.  The evening before the robbery, the victim had been a client of Jackie and Lace. While at his apartment they used his cellphone.  \nTwo witnesses interviewed by Defendant NYPD Detectives Alamo and Polite reported that a short, thin woman was involved in the offence. This description did not match either the Plaintiff or her co-defendant to the original prosecution. \nThe victim and another witness stated that Jackie and Lace had used the victim's phone. Defendant NYPD Detective Smith asked the victim to identify which, if any, numbers in his call log were unfamiliar. Due to his extensive injuries and pain medication, the victim erroneously identified a number which he himself dialed in error as the number dialed by Jackie and Lace. That number led detectives to Latisha, a friend of the Plaintiff's and her eventual co-defendant in the trial which led to the Plaintiff's wrongful conviction. Latisha was identified by the victim in a photo array which was not recorded or administered by a neutral party. \nLatisha was ultimately taken in for questioning regarding the robbery and held for a 22-hour interrogation. The result of the interrogation was a false confession by Latisha which implicated the Plaintiff in the robbery and shooting. The confession given by Latisha had several hallmarks of police coercion, including providing her with details of the offence which she could not have otherwise known. The confession was so clearly unreliable that the prosecution did not adduce it during the trial. Instead, the State relied on perjured testimony from accomplices to the shooting who had cut deals in return for their cooperation. \nLastly, the prosecution relied heavily on the victim's phone records which tied the crime to Latisha. The full unredacted record was not disclosed to defence counsel until the trial was nearly concluded. When it was finally disclosed, it was revealed that Latisha's phone number is only one (1) digit off a number regularly called by the victim. The call to Latisha's number only lasted a few seconds. Essentially, the victim had dialed Latisha's number in error and then hung up when he realized this. The exculpatory evidence should have been furnished to defence counsel well in advance of the trial. \nThe Bronx District Attorney's Office concealed exculpatory evidence, improperly influenced witnesses to give false testimony, suborned testimony knowing it to be false and wrongfully pursued the prosecution without good cause. \nYears later, while Latisha and the Plaintiff served their heavy prison sentences, appellate counsel reinvestigated the case. That investigation uncovered numerous irreconcilable problems with the case against the Plaintiff and Latisha, most notably identification of the true Jackie and Lace perpetrators. When the NYPD was provided with that information, they questioned Jackie and Lace and received detailed, well-corroborated confessions from them, incontrovertibly exonerating the Plaintiff and Latisha.","documents":[{"url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.449211/gov.uscourts.nysd.449211.2.1.pdf","type":"complaint"}],"url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13346986/blyden-v-city-of-new-york/"},{"name":"Davila, Jonathan vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2013-11-04","disposition_date":"2018-06-15","payout_amount":15000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"306402/2013","court":"Supreme Court - Bronx","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael"},{"name":"Cotto, Cecilia vs City of New York, et al.","start_date":"2013-03-20","disposition_date":"2014-02-18","payout_amount":75000,"disposition":"Settlement","docket":"301815/2013","court":"Supreme Court - Bronx","officer_name":"Diskin, Michael"}],"documents":[{"url":"https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24441170-bronx-notified-officers-list-edited_redacted-redacted_redacted","type":"credibility-finding"}],"id":"4R8L","url":"https://www.50-a.org/officer/4R8L"}