David K. Kim

Badge #26721, Asian Male
Police Officer at 106th Precinct since January 2026
Service started October 2015, made $148,000 last year, Tax #959732

Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest
Discourtesy: Word

Discipline Cases:

Case: 2023-28016
Closed: 3/6/2023
Case: 2022-27338
Closed: 1/25/2023

View Details

Complaints

4 Complaints
7 Allegations
2 Substantiated
1 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
1 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
1 Complainant Unavailable
2 Unsubstantiated
2 Within NYPD Guidelines

Complaint #202403059, March 2024
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Male, 65-69
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
additional details

Complaint #202302666, March 2023
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat re: removal to hospital
Complainant: Black Male, 18-20
CCRB Conclusion: Within NYPD Guidelines
additional details

Complaint #202201234, October 2021
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Within NYPD Guidelines
NYPD Conclusion: No Disciplinary Action-DUP
Penalty: No penalty
additional details

Complaint #202104160, July 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest
Complainant: Black Female, 80-99
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Offensive Language: Race
Complainant: Black Female, 80-99
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Female, 80-99
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Penalty: Command Discipline - B (Vacation: 5 days)
additional details

Complaint #202403059, March 2024
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Black Male, 65-69 Complainant Unavailable
additional details
Complaint #202302666, March 2023
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Threat re: removal to hospital Black Male, 18-20 Within NYPD Guidelines
additional details
Complaint #202201234, October 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Black Female, 55-59 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
Force: Physical force Black Female, 55-59 Within NYPD Guidelines
NYPD Conclusion: No Disciplinary Action-DUP
Penalty: No penalty
additional details
Complaint #202104160, July 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest Black Female, 80-99 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Offensive Language: Race Black Female, 80-99 Unsubstantiated
Discourtesy: Word Black Female, 80-99 Unsubstantiated
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Penalty: Command Discipline - B (Vacation: 5 days)
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

'Substantiated': The misconduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'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.


Discipline

Case: 2023-28016
Closed: 3/6/2023
Case Details:
  1. Wrongfully discourteous to an individual known to the Department.
Recommendation: Command Discipline - A

Case: 2022-27338
Closed: 1/25/2023
Case Details:
  1. Wrongfully threatened to arrest an individual known to the Department.
Penalty: B - Command Discipline, vacation days (5 days)
Recommendation: Command Discipline - B


Lawsuits

Bah, Alhaji, et al. vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 513861/2018, Supreme Court - Kings, August 14, 2018
Complaint
Description: On or about July 13, 2017 at approximately 10:55 p.m. Plaintiff 1 was carjacked by two individuals masked in bandanas. After the carjackers drove out of the parking lot, hitting a parked car, Plaintiff 1 called 911 and unnamed POs arrived. A friend of Plaintiff's had left his phone in the stolen car which allowed Plaintiff and officers to track the car to its location, parked illegally in an unsafe neighborhood. POs began to ask Plaintiff 1 to identify who carjacked him. Plaintiff 1 explained he did not see perpetrators' faces, but regardless POs began to line up nearby black men. Plaintiff 1 and his friends declined to falsely identify any individual because they did not see any faces. POs thereafter refused t...

Other Documents