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.
'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.
'Unsubstantiated': or 'Unable to Determine' - CCRB has fully investigated but could not affirmatively conclude both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
Further details on conclusion definitions.
Named in 4 known lawsuits, $400 total settlements.
Torres, William vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 150131/2023,
Supreme Court - New York, January 5, 2023
Whiting, James vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 16CV00534,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, February 3, 2016, ended January 10, 2017
Zero Disposition
Complaint,
Amended Complaint,
Second Amended Complaint
Description: Defendant officers approached Plaintiff on the street, tightly handcuffed him, searched him, found prescribed pills, and then arrested him, and took him to the 13th precinct. Officers charged plaintiff with PL 155.25 'Petit larceny', PL 220.03 'Criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree' and PL 165.40 'Criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree'. All charges were later dismissed.
Ayala v. City of New York, et al
Case # 11CV02177,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY
$400 Settlement
Amended Complaint
Description: On April 17, 2009 plaintiff was arrested and held in jail on bail for further grand jury action under docket number 2009NY31083. The Grand Jury returned a NO TRUE BILL and all charges were dismissed. During his arrest, $2,000 was stolen.
Smith v. City of New York, et al
Case # 12CV04890,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY
Dismissed with Prejudice
Docket Report
Description: On November 8, 2008 defendant Leonardo Nimo arrested the plaintiff after plaintiff was seen to have given another person a cigarette. At the time of arresting the plaintiff defendant Nimo knew that plaintiff had not committed a criminal offense and arrested plaintiff to cause plaintiff to be prosecuted in an attempt to dissuade persons from selling illegal cigarettes. Defendant NIMO had previously arrested other persons in front of 109 E. 16th Street NY, NY and was aware that plaintiff would be prosecuted by the defendant CITY OF NEW YORK even though no evidence of a crime having been committed by plaintiff. The defendant CITY OF NEW YORK was aware from the criminal complaint that there was no evidence of a cri...