Lawsuit settlements:
$180,000 Divyn, Izi, et al. vs City of New York, et al., 2013 EDNY EDNY 13CV05135
View Details
$180,000 Divyn, Izi, et al. vs City of New York, et al., 2013 EDNY EDNY 13CV05135
View Details
Abraham J. Sanabria
Also served at
78th Precinct
Service
started March 2000, ended November 2022,
Tax #926359
Hispanic Male
Complaints
2
Complaints
2
Allegations
0
Substantiated
1
Complainant Unavailable
1
Exonerated
Complaint #200305676,
July 2003
additional details
| Allegation: | Force: Physical force |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Male |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Complainant Unavailable |
Complaint #200303856,
May 2003
additional details
| Allegation: | Force: Physical force |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | White Male, 42 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Exonerated |
| Complaint #200305676, July 2003 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Force: Physical force | Male | Complainant Unavailable |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #200303856, May 2003 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Force: Physical force | White Male, 42 | Exonerated |
| additional details | ||
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.
Further details on conclusion definitions.
Lawsuits
Named in 2 known lawsuits, $180,000 total settlements.Watkins, Lazette vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 521329/2019, Supreme Court - Kings, October 1, 2019
Divyn, Izi, et al. vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 13CV05135, U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, September 17, 2013, ended December 15, 2014
$180,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On October 30, 2012, at approximately 1:00 p.m., in Queens, New York, plaintiffs Izi Divyn, Keeman Brown, and Thomas Stokes (brothers) were in the process of moving Mr. Divny's safe from Mr. Brown's house, which had been flooded by the hurricane, to Mr. Divny's home. They were stopped by NYPD officers Abraham Sanabria and Daniel Perrino, who demanded the safe be opened. Mr. Divyn explained that the safe was his and contained valuables, but that he could not open it because of water damage to the safe's the digital lock mechanism. Mr. Divyn offered to retrieve documents proving that he owned the safe, but the officers refused to allow this and instead, arrested plaintiffs and transported them to the 61st prec...