Conclusion Meanings:
'Exonerated': or 'Within NYPD Guidelines' - the alleged conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
'Substantiated': The alleged conduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'Unable to Determine': CCRB has fully investigated but could not affirmatively conclude both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.
'Within NYPD Guidelines': The alleged conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
Further details on conclusion definitions.
Named in 2 known lawsuits.
Corbett, Tyshawn vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 520995/2016,
Supreme Court - Kings, December 15, 2016, ended July 14, 2017
Zero Disposition
Corbett, Tyshawn vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 15CV07359,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, January 8, 2016, ended October 11, 2016
Zero Disposition
Complaint
Description: Defendant Officers pulled over Plaintiff's car and when plaintiff ran away Sergeant Muggeo shot his weapon at him and other officers maced and assaulted him. On a second occasion, officers approached Plaintiff on the street, searched him, took him to the 75th precinct because of a warrant, and strip-searched him. Plaintiff was given a summons which was later dismissed. On a third incident, Officer Morabito arrested Plaintiff for violating an Order of Protection even though it had been modified to allow his activity. Plaintiff was charged with Criminal Contempt which was later dismissed.