Darryl T. Ng

Badge #1785, Asian Male
Detective Grade 1 at Department Comm Intel & Counterterrorism since February 2017, active
Service started July 2004, made $197,000 last year, Tax #934819

Complaints

2 Complaints
4 Allegations
0 Substantiated
1 Complainant Unavailable
2 Exonerated
1 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #201600061, January 2016
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest
Complainant: White Female, 37
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest
Complainant: White Female, 37
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Discourtesy: Action
Complainant: White Female, 37
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #200611034, August 2006
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: White Female, 47
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
additional details

Complaint #201600061, January 2016
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest White Female, 37 Exonerated
Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest White Female, 37 Exonerated
Discourtesy: Action White Female, 37 Unsubstantiated
additional details
Complaint #200611034, August 2006
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force White Female, 47 Complainant Unavailable
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.
'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.


Lawsuits

Zahriah, Rasmia vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 15CV00301, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, January 16, 2015, ended April 4, 2016
Zero Disposition
Complaint, First Amended Complaint
Description: On March 30, 2014, plaintiff was approached by NYPD detectives Edward Hennessy and Ng ("officers"). Officers claimed they were responding to a harassment report by a third party against plaintiff. Plaintiff told officers that the harassment report was baseless and retaliatory as the third party and plaintiff were dating the same person at the time and had a bitter relationship as a result. Despite some evidence that officers knew or should have known the dubious veracity of the harassment report, officers searched and arrested plaintiff without probable cause. The officers then subsequently made false accusations and provided fabricated documents to the District Attorney's Office to prosecute the plaintiff....