Elliot S. Zinstein

Elliot S. Zinstein

Elliot S. Zinstein
Badge #5494, White Male
Sergeant at Training Bureau since August 2023, active
Also served at Patrol Borough Bronx Impact Response Team, 33rd Precinct, 42nd Precinct
Service started July 2008, made $146,000 last year, Tax #947634

Substantiated Allegations:
Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton) (4)
Force: Physical force (3)


Lawsuit settlements:
$405,000   Morales, Zuleyka, et Al vs City of New York, et al., 2021 SDNY SDNY 21CV07332
$24,000   Ojeda, Annabella vs City of New York, et al., 2021 SDNY SDNY 21CV05775
$72,000   Gilliam, Marcus, et Al vs Lynch, Patrick, et al., 2021 SDNY SDNY 21CV05263
View Details

Complaints

7 Complaints
17 Allegations
7 Substantiated
4 Substantiated (Charges)
3 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
1 Complainant Unavailable
4 Complainant Uncooperative
2 Exonerated
1 Unfounded
2 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #202004203, June 2020
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Interference with recording
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Force: Physical force
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Force: Physical force
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton)
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
Allegation: Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton)
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
Allegation: Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton)
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
Allegation: Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton)
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Charges)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Command Discipline B
APU Plea Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days
APU Case Status: Closed: Resolved by plea, April 2024
Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days / Command Discipline B
additional details

Complaint #202004315, June 2020
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Penalty: Command Discipline - B (Vacation: 5 days)
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Complaint #201803608, May 2018
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number
Complainant: Black Male, 40
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Male, 40
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest
Complainant: Black Male, 40
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Complaint #201608679, October 2016
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of force (verbal or physical)
Complainant: Hispanic Male, 31
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Complaint #201305477, June 2013
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: White Female, 31
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Complaint #201110594, August 2011
Allegation: Offensive Language: Ethnicity
Complainant: Hispanic Male, 39
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
additional details

Complaint #201004354, March 2010
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Frisk
Complainant: Black Male, 24
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Vehicle search
Complainant: Black Male, 19
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
additional details

Complaint #202004203, June 2020
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Interference with recording Hispanic Female, 30-34 Exonerated
Force: Physical force Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Force: Physical force Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton) Substantiated (Charges)
Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton) Substantiated (Charges)
Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton) Substantiated (Charges)
Discourtesy: Word Unfounded
Force: Nightstick as club (incl asp & baton) Hispanic Female, 30-34 Substantiated (Charges)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Command Discipline B
APU Plea Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days
APU Case Status: Closed: Resolved by plea, April 2024
Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days / Command Discipline B
additional details
Complaint #202004315, June 2020
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force Hispanic Female, 30-34 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
NYPD Conclusion: Command Discipline - B
Penalty: Command Discipline - B (Vacation: 5 days)
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details
Complaint #201803608, May 2018
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name/shield number Black Male, 40 Complainant Uncooperative
Discourtesy: Word Black Male, 40 Complainant Uncooperative
Abuse of Authority: Threat of arrest Black Male, 40 Complainant Uncooperative
additional details
Complaint #201608679, October 2016
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Threat of force (verbal or physical) Hispanic Male, 31 Unsubstantiated
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details
Complaint #201305477, June 2013
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word White Female, 31 Complainant Uncooperative
additional details
Complaint #201110594, August 2011
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Offensive Language: Ethnicity Hispanic Male, 39 Complainant Unavailable
additional details
Complaint #201004354, March 2010
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Frisk Black Male, 24 Unsubstantiated
Abuse of Authority: Vehicle search Black Male, 19 Exonerated
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.
'Substantiated': The alleged conduct 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' - 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.


Discipline

Case: 2021-24430
Closed: 6/15/2022
Case Details:
  1. Wrongfully used physical force.
Penalty: B - Command Discipline, vacation days (5 days)
Recommendation: Command Discipline - B

Case: 2019-19972
Closed: 3/19/2019
Case Details:
  1. Guilty: Did wrongfully engage in off-duty employment without the necessary permission and approval of the Department.
Penalty: Vacation days (10 days)

Case: 2013-10190
Opened: 8/8/2013
Closed: 2/6/2015
Case Details:
  1. Dismissed: Failed to appear at Traffic Violations Bureau, resulting in the dismissal of sixteen (16) summonses against thirteen (13) different motorists
Penalty: Charges and Specifications dismissed and respondent given schedule "a" Command Discipline


Lawsuits

Named in 6 known lawsuits, $501,000 total settlements.

Morales, Zuleyka, et Al vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 21CV07332, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, September 7, 2021, ended November 29, 2023
$405,000 Settlement
Complaint

Ojeda, Annabella vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 21CV05775, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, July 22, 2021, ended July 1, 2022
$24,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On June 15, 2020, plaintiff was working her shift at Shake Shack. P.O. Precious Cummings placed a pick-up order and complained that her milkshake tasted strange. In response, the store manager gave her and other officers with her coupons for free meals. Another group of officers, including P.O.s Genesis Nova-Diaz and Edwin Reyes-Estrada, arrived and placed milkshake orders, and later claimed falsely that they had been poisoned. Yet another group of officers, including P.O.s Elliot Zinstein and Brian Query, arrived and declared the area to be a "crime scene." Plaintiff and 4 other Shake Shack employees were instructed to remain at the premises. An unidentified officer demanded to see plaintiff's identific...

Gilliam, Marcus, et Al vs Lynch, Patrick, et al.
Case # 21CV05263, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, June 17, 2021, ended August 4, 2022
$72,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On June 15, 2020, three officers ordered shakes from Shake Shack at Fulton Transit center. Officers complained their shake did not taste right and complained to plaintiff Gilliam, who offered them vouchers as an apology. The order was placed on the mobile app, so employees could not have known the order was from officers. Yet the officers accused plaintiffs of putting a toxic substance in their milkshake. However, the officers did not get sick or exhibit any signs of ingesting a toxic substance. Yet, Sergeant Zinstein set up a crime scene at the Shake Shack and detained all employees. Plaintiff cooperated and allowed them to search the premise and watch surveillance video and provided them samples from the shak...

Rosario, Ernesio vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 026930/2020, Supreme Court - Bronx, July 7, 2020

Fernandez, David, et al. vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 17CV00789, U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, February 17, 2017
Complaint
Description: Plaintiffs David and Joey Fernandez were in an argument when Joey kicked his bedroom door down, and accidentally hit his brother's nose. Plaintiffs called an ambulance, and when it arrived, police officers also arrived at the scene. The plaintiffs explained the situation to the police officers and said that neither wished to press charges. Police officers arrested both plaintiffs, and when Joey Fernandez asked why, he was pushed to the ground and punched and then taken into a police car. Joey was then put in a chokehold inside the police car. On his way to the precinct, Joey was further brutalized by police officers. Police officers also called Joey a "faggot", a "dickhead", and accused him of being part of a g...

Morgan, Michael vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 450630/2016, Supreme Court - New York, October 6, 2015