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.
Further details on conclusions.
Case Details:
-
Failed to take police action/render police services.
-
Improperly used Department property/resources/equipment.
-
Made or caused to be made false or inaccurate entries in Department records.
Penalty: B - Command Discipline, vacation days (5 days)
Recommendation: Command Discipline - B
Named in 2 known lawsuits, $42,500 total settlements.
Hess, Joanne vs Po Laafar, Nabil, Shield# 15663, et al.
Case # 519246/2019,
Supreme Court - Kings, October 17, 2019, ended November 23, 2022
$22,500 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On July 25, 2018, Plaintiff was lawfully inside her apartment at 325 76th St, in Brooklyn, NY when defendant officers approached plaintiff without probable cause. Defendants knocked on Plaintiff's apartment door and asked, "Did you text your ex boyfriend?" Plaintiff responded, "Yes, what is this about?" Defendants forcibly grabbed Plaintiff and unlawfully handcuffed her and placed her under arrest. Defendants drove Plaintiff to the 68th Precinct. Plaintiff was shackled around her legs, and transferred to Brooklyn Central Booking. Defendants falsely stated to the Brooklyn DA that plaintiff committed crimes of stalking and harassment despite knowing they lacked a legal and factual basis to make the allegations. O...
Teitell, Daniel vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 15CV04187,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, July 17, 2015, ended January 22, 2016
$20,000 Settlement
Amended Complaint,
Complaint
Description: Defendant officer handcuffed and arrested plaintiff and accused him of being in the park illegally after hours (park closes at 10pm). Unidentified sergeant arrived and asked defendant officers to remove handcuffs from plaintiff. The plaintiff was issued two summons for Remaining in a Park After Closing and for Failing to Comply with a Park Sign. Both summons were dismissed.