Precious O. Cummings

Precious O. Cummings

Precious O. Cummings
Badge #14892, Black Female
Police Officer at Strategic Response Group 2 Bronx since January 2026
Service started April 2019, made $124,000 last year, Tax #967467

Lawsuit Settlements:
$24,000   Ojeda, Annabella vs City of Ny, et al., 2021 SDNY SDNY 21CV05775
$72,000   Gilliam, Marcus, et Al vs Lynch, Patrick, et al., 2021 SDNY SDNY 21CV05263
View Details

Complaints

3 Complaints
7 Allegations
0 Substantiated
3 Complainant Unavailable
2 Unfounded
1 Unsubstantiated
1 Within NYPD Guidelines

Complaint #202410840, October 2024
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Within NYPD Guidelines
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Black Female, 55-59
CCRB Conclusion: Unfounded
additional details

Complaint #202408168, July 2024
Allegation: Force: Physical force
Complainant: Male, 45-49
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Forcible Removal to Hospital
Complainant: Male, 45-49
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises
Complainant: Male, 45-49
CCRB Conclusion: Complainant Unavailable
additional details

Complaint #202101237, February 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name
Complainant: Hispanic Male, 30-34
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Complaint #202410840, October 2024
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force Black Female, 55-59 Within NYPD Guidelines
Discourtesy: Word Black Female, 55-59 Unfounded
Discourtesy: Word Black Female, 55-59 Unfounded
additional details
Complaint #202408168, July 2024
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Force: Physical force Male, 45-49 Complainant Unavailable
Abuse of Authority: Forcible Removal to Hospital Male, 45-49 Complainant Unavailable
Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises Male, 45-49 Complainant Unavailable
additional details
Complaint #202101237, February 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Refusal to provide name Hispanic Male, 30-34 Unsubstantiated
Documents: Complaint Closing Report
additional details

Conclusion Meanings:

'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.
'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.
'Within NYPD Guidelines': The conduct occurred but did not violate the NYPD's own rules, which often give officers significant discretion.

Further details on conclusions.


Lawsuits

Named in 2 known lawsuits, $96,000 total settlements.

Ojeda, Annabella vs City of Ny, 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...