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.
'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 3 known lawsuits, $30,000 total settlements.
Fabian, Ramon, et al. vs Pappalardo, Michael A. et al.
Case # 18CV02996,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, May 21, 2018
Complaint
Description: Plaintiffs were pulled over, accused of theft, thrown to the ground, and assaulted. They were neither brought to a police station, nor arrested. Both Plaintiffs sustained chest and knee injuries.
Fabian, Ramon, et al. vs Pappalardo, Michael A. et al.
Case # 18CV09096,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, May 21, 2018, ended December 30, 2019
$10,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On July 9, 2015, NYPD officers Michael Pappalardo and John Paul Leddy stopped plaintiffs while driving and falsely accused them of theft. The officers then threw plaintiffs to the ground, kneed them in the back, and handcuffed them. Plaintiffs were left handcuffed face-down on the ground for an extended period of time. Plaintiffs were never brought to a police station or charged with a crime.
Metters, Morgan vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 13CV05781,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, September 19, 2013, ended May 8, 2014
$20,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On August 19, 2012, at approximately 4am, PO Pappalardo and an unknown PO approached Plaintiff, who outside the 2nd Avenue Farm Market (the "Market") at 940 2nd Avenue in Midtown Manhattan. Plaintiff was shopping for flowers outside the market, having given his credit card to the Market employee inside. Without explanation, the POs rear-handcuffed placement and placed him in a nearby police car. When plaintiff asked why he was being detained, the POs refused to explain. While plaintiff was detained in the car, the Market employee informed the POs that Plaintiff had not done anything wrong. The POs took possession of Plaintiff's credit card from the Market employee and took Plaintiff to a precinct holding cell. ...