Anthony A. Gringas
Badge #423,
White Male
Police Officer at 100th Precinct since May 2026
Also served at
113th Precinct
Service
started October 2021,
made $79,400 last year,
Tax #972673
Complaints
2
Complaints
3
Allegations
0
Substantiated
2
SRAD Closure
1
Unable to Determine
Complaint #202600694,
January 2026
additional details
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Black Female, 50-54 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | SRAD Closure |
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide shield number |
| Complainant: | Black Female, 50-54 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | SRAD Closure |
Complaint #202203790,
June 2022
additional details
| Allegation: | Force: Handcuffs too tight |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Hispanic Female, 25-29 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Unable to Determine |
| Complaint #202600694, January 2026 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name | Black Female, 50-54 | SRAD Closure |
| Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide shield number | Black Female, 50-54 | SRAD Closure |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #202203790, June 2022 | ||
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Force: Handcuffs too tight | Hispanic Female, 25-29 | Unable to Determine |
| additional details | ||
Conclusion Meanings:
'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.
'Unable to Determine': The alleged conduct was investigated but could not determine both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
Further details on conclusions.
Lawsuits
Marshall, Jerome vs City of Ny, et al.Case # 725058/2023, Supreme Court - Queens, December 21, 2023
Complaint
Description: On September 21, 2022, plaintiff was arrested and detained by defendants. At this date, defendants arrived at plaintiff's home on the false report that plaintiff possesses a gun. The defendants were allowed to search plaintiff's home and found no gun. Despite that fact, defendants issued criminal process against plaintiff, charging him with menacing in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm in the fourth degree. All criminal charges were later dismissed.