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.
Further details on conclusion definitions.
Named in 5 known lawsuits, $75,000 total settlements.
Ekeoma, Amarachukwu vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 23CV00946,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, March 29, 2023
Complaint
Vasquez, Deciana vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 020237/2019E,
Supreme Court - Bronx, January 9, 2019
Vasquez, Deciana vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 20237/2019E,
Supreme Court - Bronx, January 9, 2019, ended December 12, 2019
$55,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On 1/8/19 at approximately 5:00 PM, in the vicinity of 951 Hoe Avenue, Bronx, NY,
NYPD officers, including Officers Lilian Almiron, Steven Allen, John Doe, John Roe, approached Deciana Vasquez without probable cause and stopped, searched, grabbed, assaulted, battered, and detained her in an aggressive and excessive
manner. She was arraigned, arrested, strip searched, and subjected to malicious prosecution. She remained incarcerated for over 24 hours and required to make numerous court appearances until the charges against her were terminated favorably. She suffered injuries to her head, neck, back, body, and limbs and was rendered sick, sore, lame, and disabled due to the excessive force of the officers. The ...
Jones, Shamel vs City of New York
Case # 030145/2017E,
Supreme Court - Bronx, November 8, 2017
Grant, Jonathan vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 16CV00229,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, January 20, 2016, ended June 6, 2017
$20,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: Plaintiff was in a store when an employee accused him of committing a left the previous month. Officers arrived and watched the surveillance tape, which showed someone different from Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Officers arrested Plaintiff, took him to the 41st precinct, and charged him with Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 5th Degree. Officers failed to save the exculpatory surveillance tape and charges were later dismissed.