Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Improper use of body-worn camera
Abuse of Authority: Improper use of body-worn camera
Anthony A. Sory
Badge #1916,
Hispanic Male
Also served at
49th Precinct
Service
started October 2016, ended March 2026,
Tax #962817
Complaints
2
Complaints
2
Allegations
1
Substantiated
1
Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
1
Exonerated
Complaint #202401226,
February 2024
additional details
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Improper use of body-worn camera |
|---|---|
| Complainant: | Female, 60-64 |
| CCRB Conclusion: | Substantiated (Command Discipline A) |
| Penalty: | Command Discipline - A |
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report |
Complaint #201905246,
May 2019
additional details
| Allegation: | Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises |
|---|---|
| CCRB Conclusion: | Exonerated |
| Complaint #202401226, February 2024 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Allegation | Complainant | CCRB Conclusion |
| Abuse of Authority: Improper use of body-worn camera | Female, 60-64 | Substantiated (Command Discipline A) |
| Penalty: Command Discipline - A | ||
| Documents: | Complaint Closing Report | |
| additional details | ||
| Complaint #201905246, May 2019 | ||
| Allegation | CCRB Conclusion | |
| Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises | Exonerated | |
| additional details | ||
Conclusion Meanings:
'Exonerated': or 'Within NYPD Guidelines' - The conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.
'Substantiated': The misconduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
Further details on conclusions.
Lawsuits
Middleton, Lloyd vs City of New York, et al.Case # 029989/2019E, Supreme Court - Bronx, August 28, 2019
Complaint
Description: On March 4, 2019, Lloyd Middleton ("Plaintiff") was wrongfully and falsely detained and imprisoned in the precinct station-house in the County of the Bronx, by police officers Anthony Sory, SRGT Guzman, SRGT Pena, and SRGT rabba (collectively ("Defendants") for allegedly operating a vehicle with a suspended license. Plaintiff was not operating any vehicle at any tie prior to or at the time or his arrest. Defendants did not have probable cause to arrest, detain, prosecute and imprison the plaintiff before, after or at the time of this incident.