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.
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