Steven C. Allen

Steven C. Allen

Steven C. Allen
Badge #307, Black Male
Police Officer at 49th Precinct since October 2023, active
Service started July 2010, made $103,000 last year, Tax #948606

Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to process civilian complaint

Discipline Cases:

Case: 2018-19112
Closed: 6/7/2018
Case: 2013-10610
Closed: 9/8/2014

View Details

Lawsuit settlements:
$55,000   Vasquez, Deciana vs City of New York, et al., 2019 BCSC BCSC 20237/2019E
$20,000   Grant, Jonathan vs City of New York, et al., 2016 SDNY SDNY 16CV00229
View Details

Complaints

4 Complaints
9 Allegations
1 Substantiated
1 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
5 Complainant Uncooperative
2 Exonerated
1 Unfounded

Complaint #202102843, May 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to process civilian complaint
Complainant: Black Female, 80-99
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Closed: SOL Expired prior to APU
APU Case Status: Closed: SOL Expired prior to APU, June 2023
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
APU Quarterly Report summary
additional details

Complaint #202002303, March 2020
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Offensive Language: Other
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
additional details

Complaint #201800451, January 2018
Allegation: Offensive Language: Gender
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Force: Chokehold
Complainant: Hispanic Female, 30
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Uncooperative
additional details

Complaint #201706875, August 2017
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Hispanic Male, 31
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
additional details

Complaint #202102843, May 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to process civilian complaint Black Female, 80-99 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Closed: SOL Expired prior to APU
APU Case Status: Closed: SOL Expired prior to APU, June 2023
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
APU Quarterly Report summary
additional details
Complaint #202002303, March 2020
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises Black Female, 55-59 Exonerated
Offensive Language: Other Black Female, 55-59 Unfounded
additional details
Complaint #201800451, January 2018
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Offensive Language: Gender Hispanic Female, 30 Complainant Uncooperative
Force: Physical force Hispanic Female, 30 Complainant Uncooperative
Discourtesy: Word Hispanic Female, 30 Complainant Uncooperative
Force: Chokehold Hispanic Female, 30 Complainant Uncooperative
Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises Complainant Uncooperative
additional details
Complaint #201706875, August 2017
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force Hispanic Male, 31 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.

Further details on conclusion definitions.


Discipline

Case: 2018-19112
Closed: 6/7/2018
Case Details:
  1. Guilty: Misuse of time.
  2. Guilty: Failed to make required entries in Department logs (command log, roll call, activity log, vehicle movement/utilization, radio log, vehicle assignment, dv activity log).
  3. Guilty: Off post.
Penalty: Vacation days (10 days)

Case: 2013-10610
Opened: 2/24/2014
Closed: 9/8/2014
Case Details:
  1. Guilty: Wrongfully utilized the Department computer on six (6) occasions utilizing a member of the service's confidential access code to make inquiries unrelated to the official business of the Department
  2. Guilty: Did inappropriately use a member of the service's confidential access code on fourteen (14) occasions to make inquiries related to the official business of the Department
Penalty: Forfeiture of five (5) vacation days


Lawsuits

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.