Substantiated Allegations:
Discourtesy: Word
Discourtesy: Word
Hongming Peng
Badge #18008,
Asian Male
Police Officer at Police Academy Payroll and Roll Call since July 2026
Service
started July 2010,
made $178,000 last year,
Tax #949463
Complaints
5
Complaints
6
Allegations
1
Substantiated
1
Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
1
Exonerated
1
SRAD Closure
1
Unfounded
1
Unsubstantiated
1
Within NYPD Guidelines
Complaint #202504620,
May 2025
additional details
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Obstructed Shield Number |
|---|---|
| CCRB Conclusion: | SRAD Closure |
Complaint #202306443,
June 2023
additional details
| Allegation: | Discourtesy: Word |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | White Male, 35-39 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Substantiated (Command Discipline A) |
| NYPD Conclusion: | No Disciplinary Action-DUP |
| Penalty: | No penalty |
Complaint #202206365,
September 2022
additional details
| Allegation: | Force: Physical force |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Black Male, 30-34 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Within NYPD Guidelines |
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report |
Complaint #201608392,
September 2016
additional details
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Search of recording device |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Hispanic Male, 66 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Unsubstantiated |
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report |
Complaint #201603899,
March 2015
additional details
| Allegation: | Force: Physical force |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | White Female, 44 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Unfounded |
| Allegation: | Force: Physical force |
| Complainant: | White Female, 44 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Exonerated |
| Complaint #202504620, May 2025 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Allegation | CCRB Conclusion | |
| Abuse of Authority: Obstructed Shield Number | SRAD Closure | |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #202306443, June 2023 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Discourtesy: Word | White Male, 35-39 | Substantiated (Command Discipline A) |
| NYPD Conclusion: No Disciplinary Action-DUP | ||
| Penalty: No penalty | ||
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #202206365, September 2022 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Force: Physical force | Black Male, 30-34 | Within NYPD Guidelines |
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report | |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #201608392, September 2016 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Abuse of Authority: Search of recording device | Hispanic Male, 66 | Unsubstantiated |
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report | |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #201603899, March 2015 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Force: Physical force | White Female, 44 | Unfounded |
| Force: Physical force | White Female, 44 | Exonerated |
| additional details | ||
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.
'SRAD Closure': Strategic Resource Allocation Determination - due to citywide budget cuts, CCRB is no longer able to fully investigate certain cases within its jurisdiction and suspended investigating some types of complaints.
'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.
Lawsuits
Named in 2 known lawsuits.Isaac, Desmore & Chapo, Charles vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 518061/2026, Supreme Court - Kings, June 29, 2026
Sapozhnikov, Delana as Png of G.,d., et al. vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 18CV01652, U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, March 21, 2018, ended August 26, 2019
Zero Disposition
Complaint
Description: For months after an order of protection to protect Plaintiffs (mother and two children) against Defendant (her partner) had been violated, Defendant Officers took no action against Defendant because he was a personal friend of Defendant Officer Sgt Doe.