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.
'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.
Named in 3 known lawsuits, $215,000 total settlements.
Cerisier, James vs City of Ny, et al.
Case # 503698/2024,
Supreme Court - Kings, February 15, 2024
Complaint
Description: On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff James Cerisier, a senior employee of the NYC Department of Education, was driving on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway when Officer Shah directed him to pull over. Without provocation, Officer Shah escalated the stop by drawing his firearm and pointing it at Cerisier through the windshield. Cerisier complied with Shah’s instructions, fearing for his life. After noticing Cerisier's DOE permit, Shah relaxed, asked for ID, and left without issuing a ticket or apology. Traumatized, Cerisier sought justice through the 76th Precinct and the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), but received no substantial assistance. After pursuing the matter in federal court, Cerisier continues to suffe...
Cerisier, James vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 19CV03850,
U.S. District Court - Southern District NY, November 27, 2019, ended July 20, 2022
Zero Disposition
Complaint
Description: In or about November 1998, Dutchess Community College and Dutchess Community College Association, Inc. hired Plaintiff to serve as General Manager of the Association. Plaintiff performed his work in a satisfactory manner and was fully qualified to perform his duties. At no time during his employment did Defendants raise issues about Plaintiff’s performance, nor did Plaintiff engage in any workplace misconduct or breach workplace rules. In or about 1999 or 2000, the Association and College promoted Plaintiff to Executive Director of the Association. In or about June 2014, the College named Ms. Pamela Edington as President of the College. Ms. Edington also served on the Board of Directions and Board of Trustees f...
Pierce, Grace, et Al vs City of New York, et al.
Case # 515536/2016,
Supreme Court - Kings, September 30, 2016, ended February 13, 2019
$215,000 Settlement