Conclusion Meanings:
'Exonerated': or 'Within NYPD Guidelines' - The conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
'Substantiated': The misconduct 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' - The alleged conduct was investigated but could not determine both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
'Within NYPD Guidelines': The conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
Further details on conclusions.
Named in 3 known lawsuits, $12,000,000 total settlements.
Urena, Amaury vs City of Ny, et al.
Case # 004387/2023,
Supreme Court - Bronx, August 31, 2023
Monsanto, Luis vs City of Ny
Case # 812925/2022E,
Supreme Court - Bronx, September 6, 2022, ended February 27, 2026
$12,000,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On March 6, 2022 Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle at stopped at a red light at the intersection of Boston Roach and East 165th Street in the Bronx, when Defendant Officers approached Plaintiff in two unmarked NYPD vehicles, one of which rapidly moved in front of Plaintiff’s motor vehicle, blocking its path without warning lights activated. Plaintiff began to reverse, when the second unmarked NYPD vehicle pulled behind Plaintiff, also blocking his path, without warning lights activated. When Plaintiff tried to maneuver his vehicle forward to the left around the unmarked cars, Defendant Officers exited their vehicles with their firearms drawn at Plaintiff. Defendant Officers Rodriguez and/or Moriarty disch...
Rawls, Benjamin vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 803513/2021,
Supreme Court - Bronx, March 15, 2021
Complaint
Description: On September 16, 2018, at approximately 5:55 P.M., at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and E 163rd Street, Bronx, New York Plaintiff Benjamin Rawls was lawfully riding a battery powered bicycle designed for children's use with his girlfriend. Defendants, including Juan Peralta and John and Jane Doe 1-10 demanded Plaintiff's driver's license and then falsely claimed that Plaintiff's bicycle was illegal, and that Plaintiff was not allowed to ride it on the sidewalk. The plaintiff was not riding on the sidewalk but had stopped to talk to a friend. Plaintiff informed that said bicycle was legal and designed for children's use, and that a driver's license was not required to operate said bicycle. Plaintiff provided th...