Carlyle Jeanjoseph

Badge #7880, Black Male
Police Officer at 66th Precinct since March 2023, active
Service started January 2016, made $122,000 last year, Tax #960728

Substantiated Allegations:
Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises
Abuse of Authority: Forcible Removal to Hospital
Abuse of Authority: Property damaged
Abuse of Authority: Threat of force (verbal or physical)

Lawsuit settlements:
$19,000   Sherman, Avroham vs City of New York, et al., 2018 EDNY EDNY 18CV05359
View Details

Complaints

2 Complaints
6 Allegations
4 Substantiated
1 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
3 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
1 Exonerated
1 Unsubstantiated

Complaint #202103150, May 2021
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Property damaged
Complainant: Age 40-44
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Threat of force (verbal or physical)
Complainant: Age 40-44
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Other
Complainant: Age 40-44
CCRB Conclusion: Exonerated
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises
Complainant: Age 40-44
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Allegation: Abuse of Authority: Forcible Removal to Hospital
Complainant: Age 40-44
CCRB Conclusion: Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Command Discipline B
APU Plea Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days
APU Case Status: Closed: Resolved by plea, February 2024
Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days / Command Discipline B
additional details

Complaint #202005736, June 2020
Allegation: Discourtesy: Word
Complainant: Asian Female, 21-24
CCRB Conclusion: Unsubstantiated
additional details

Complaint #202103150, May 2021
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Abuse of Authority: Property damaged Age 40-44 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Abuse of Authority: Threat of force (verbal or physical) Age 40-44 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Abuse of Authority: Other Age 40-44 Exonerated
Abuse of Authority: Entry of Premises Age 40-44 Substantiated (Command Discipline B)
Abuse of Authority: Forcible Removal to Hospital Age 40-44 Substantiated (Command Discipline A)
NYPD Conclusion: APU Command Discipline B
APU Plea Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days
APU Case Status: Closed: Resolved by plea, February 2024
Penalty: Forfeit vacation 10 days / Command Discipline B
additional details
Complaint #202005736, June 2020
Allegation Complainant CCRB Conclusion
Discourtesy: Word Asian Female, 21-24 Unsubstantiated
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.
'Unsubstantiated': or 'Unable to Determine' - CCRB has fully investigated but could not affirmatively conclude both that the conduct occurred and that it broke the rules.

Further details on conclusion definitions.


Lawsuits

Named in 2 known lawsuits, $19,000 total settlements.

Sherman, Avroham vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 18CV05359, U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, September 26, 2018, ended October 29, 2019
$19,000 Settlement
Complaint
Description: On October 5, 2017, plaintiff agreed to loan $160.00 to an acquaintance in exchange for his phone as collateral. The acquaintance then conspired with officer Hernandez to have plaintiff arrested for grand larceny after he refused to return the phone without repayment of the loan. Officers Joseph and Stewart went to plaintiff's apartment and falsely arrested him, refusing to watch the cellphone recording that evidenced the loan agreement between plaintiff and his acquaintance.

Zeidman, Nathan vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 17CV05375, U.S. District Court - Eastern District NY, September 22, 2017, ended June 21, 2022
Order/Judgment (Verdict)
Complaint
Description: Defendant Officers went to Plaintiff's apartment because he allegedly had his son with him although he did not have lawful custody of the son. Defendant Officers used excessive force on the Plaintiff and charged him with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, PL 195.05 and Resisting Arrest, PL 205.30, which were later dismissed.

Other Documents