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.
'SRAD Closure': Strategic Resource Allocation Determination - due to citywide budget cuts, CCRB is no longer able to fully investigate certain cases within its jurisdiction and suspended investigating some types of complaints.
'Substantiated': The misconduct occurred and it violated the rules. The NYPD has discretion over what, if any, discipline is imposed.
'Unable to Determine': The alleged conduct was investigated but could not determine both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.
'Unfounded': Evidence suggests that the event or alleged conduct did not occur.
'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.
Named in 2 known lawsuits, $115,000 total settlements.
Dupree, Terry vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 510321/2019,
Supreme Court - Kings, May 9, 2019
Complaint
Description: On May 18, 2018, the plaintiff was inside a store at 1295 Pacific Street, Brooklyn, New York. While the plaintiff was giving a customer change, defendant NYPD police officers entered the store and forcefully stopped the plaintiff and handcuffed him tightly. While handcuffed the defendants conducted an invasive body cavity search inside the store three times, by two separate officers, without gloves. No contraband was found on the plaintiff. While at the precinct the plaintiff was subjected to another cavity search, and nothing was recovered. The plaintiff's request for medical attention was denied.
Azurdia, Diego, et al. vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 18CV04189,
U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, September 11, 2018, ended May 27, 2022
$115,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: The Defendants P.O. Toribio and P.O. Germain, came the residence of Plaintiff Mr. Azurdia when he had failed to pay his taxi driver. When Plaintiff Azurdia opened his door, one of the Defendant Officers immediately fired his gun at, and hit, the Plaintiff Azurdia's dog several times. Two Defendant- officers placed Plaintiff Azurdia in handcuffs and transported him to the 77th Precinct. The Plaintiff's dog died as a result of the bullet injuries it had sustained. Plaintiff Azurdia was charged with Theft of services. The charges were eventually dismissed.