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.
'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 2 known lawsuits, $6,250 total settlements.
Adeleke, Andrew vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 714436/2021,
Supreme Court - Queens, June 24, 2021, ended February 7, 2022
$6,250 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On January 16, 2020, plaintiff was present in the vicinity of 153rd ST and South Road and saw an attractive female and began to speak with her but nothing offensive. Defendant POs approached the plaintiff and forcefully fulled plaintiff from his vehicle and then immediately placed him under arrest by handcuffing his arm tightly behind his back. Plaintiff was transported to a nearby police precinct and charged with a crime with patronizing a prostitute. Plaintiff's vehicle was also searched. Plaintiff had to make one court appearance before all charges against him were adjourned in contemplation of dismissal on February 5, 2020.
Anderson, Reginald vs Hertz Corporations Llc, et al.
Case # 18CV01351,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, April 18, 2018, ended July 3, 2018
Zero Disposition
Complaint
Description: On November 1, 2017, a vehicle rented by Hertz Corporation crashed into the Plaintiff’s car parked in front of his house causing major damage. The occupant of the rented vehicle ran away and never returned the vehicle to Hertz. The Plaintiff contacted Hertz and was in an ongoing negotiation/dispute with Hertz and Hertz’s insurance company, ESIS, regarding the proper amount of payment for the damage. The vehicle was in storage while the Plaintiff and ESIS negotiated, but on November 2017, a ESIS representative informed the Plaintiff that the vehicle was not reparable and the storage fee was mounting. On November 27, 2017, an ESIS representative informed the Plaintiff that because the storage fee was mounting, th...