Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
R.A. and MANDEEP KUMAR,
Plaintiffs,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND DEMAND FOR
A JURY TRIAL

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK,
AND HAROLD AVALOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
1. This is an action for compensatory and punitive damages for violation of Plaintiffs' rights
under the Fourth, Fifth Amendments and Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States by reason of the unlawful acts of defendants.

JURISDICTION
2.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28

U.S.C. § 1343. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) in that all claims arose in
this district.
PARTIES
3.
4.

Plaintiffs are residents of Queens County, New York City in New York State.
At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant Police Officer was an employee of the

New York City Police Department (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "N.Y.P.D.") acting within
the scope and authority of his employment. He is being sued individually and in his official capacity
as a New York City Police Officer.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 53

5. The Defendant CITY OF NEW YORK, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "City"),
was a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State
of New York, and as such maintained the New York City Police Department and employed the
individual Defendants sued herein.
6. That upon information and belief the City was responsible for the training of its police
officers.
7. That at all times herein the defendant, City, was negligent in the hiring, training,
supervision, discipline, retention and promotion of the agents, servants and/or employees of the
N.Y.P.D.
8. That at all times mentioned herein the Defendant, City, knew or should have known of the
discriminatory nature, bad judgment, and unlawful propensities of the officer involved in the
violation of civil rights of the Plaintiffs.
FACTS
9.

On September 28, 2012, R.A.’s common-law husband Mandeep Kumar called 911

because he and R.A. were having an argument and he wanted R.A. to leave the house.
10.

When the police arrived at their home located at 70-19 45th Avenue, Woodside, New

York, an officer named Harold Avalos entered the premises, took R.A. aside and comforted her.
11.

Officer Avalos asked R.A. why a beautiful woman like her is with a guy like

him, meaning Mandeep Kumar.
12.

Officer Avalos told R.A. that she must go to Family Court to get an order of

protection. He also gave R.A. his cell phone number and asked R.A. for a number for him to contact
her. R.A. gave him her sister's phone number.
13.

The very next day Officer Avalos texted R.A.’s sister telling her to have R.A. call him

back right away.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 54

14.

R.A. called him back. He asked R.A., "Did you go to Family Court?" She said, "No. I

don't want to go to Family Court." Then he said, "It is very important. You must go to Family Court."
Then he said that he knew of a Punjabi man who had killed his wife and cut her into pieces after she
failed to get an order of protection. His words scared R.A.
15.

R.A. followed his advice and went to Family Court and received an order of

protection.
16.

A week later Officer Avalos told R.A. he wanted to come to her house because as her

domestic violence officer he wanted to make sure she was okay.
17.

About a week after the 911 incident, Officer Avalos came to R.A.’s mother's house

and he kept telling R.A. to get Mandeep arrested. One day R.A. told him that Mandeep had called her
crying and begging for them to get back together.
18.

Officer Avalos told R.A. to get Mandeep arrested for this call as it was made in

violation of the order of protection.
19.

For the next couple of weeks R.A. spoke on a daily basis with officer Avalos, who was

very kind and told her she could call him for help any time.
20.

Approximately one month after first meeting R.A., Officer Avalos called R.A. in the

beginning of November 2012 and told her that Mandeep had made a complaint and that she was going
to be arrested. When he told her that, she got scared and anxious. He said, "Don't panic. I will take care
of everything.
21. Officer Avalos told R.A. to meet with him so that he could help her get through Central

Booking quicker. He said, "I need to do some paperwork and make some phone calls to get you out
of Central Booking fast."

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 55

22.

Late at night on November 11, 2012, officer Avalos came to R.A.’s house and he

convinced her to go with him to a motel supposedly just to talk. He told her the motel was best
because he could not be seen with her as he was not supposed to be helping with her pending arrest.
23.

At the motel, he tried to kiss R.A. She pushed him away, and for the next couple of

hours they just talked, at which time he cried to her that he understood her pain because the mother of
his children had once had him arrested and he had been placed on desk duty as a result.
24.

A few days later R.A. was arrested for supposedly taking some items from Mandeep's

home. Officer Avalos was the officer who took the complaint from Mandeep. R.A. later learned that
Officer Avalos had convinced Mandeep to get R.A. arrested when he was serving a third-party order
of protection on him which Officer Avalos had urged R.A. to get.
25.

Officer Avalos and R.A. continued to text and talk over the next few weeks.

26.

On R.A.’s birthday, December 3rd, 2012, Officer Avalos called R.A. and told her he

wanted to take her out.
27.

R.A. agreed, and they went to a nearby bar, where he ordered many beers and he

ordered R.A. about five shots of tequila. R.A. got very drunk and told him she wanted to go home. He
said he would take her home, but that first they should get something to eat. The last thing R.A.
remembers from that night is getting into a taxi with him.
28.

The next thing R.A. remembers is waking up in a room with no clothes on. Avalos

didn't have any clothes on either. R.A. asked him "Where am I?" He said they were in a motel. R.A.
said, "Why do I have no clothes on?" He said they had sex. R.A. was totally shocked and started to
cry. She picked up her clothes from the floor and went into the bathroom where she saw vomit all
over the place.
29.

R.A. was crying and told him she did not believe him that they had sex. He showed

her naked pictures of herself and pictures of them having sex, and also told her he had taken a video.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 56

30.

R.A. got even more upset and he told her to "you need to shut up". He said "if you say

anything to anybody about this I will put your naked pictures and video on the internet and I will
make you very famous. I will send the sex video to your kid's father."
31.

Over the next couple of weeks R.A. did not know what to do. She did not tell anyone

what had happened. She was deeply ashamed, embarrassed and scared.
32.

Officer Avalos and R.A. continued to text and talk. She kept asking him to delete the

pictures and video, but he refused, saying that the pictures were so beautiful. He even had R.A.’s
arrest photo on his phone which he also claimed was pretty. After December 3rd, 2012, he texted
R.A. and included a picture of them having sex. R.A. deleted it right away.
33.

In March, 2013, R.A. agreed to meet with Officer Avalos because he said he would delete

the photos. R.A. got into his Lamborghini and he promised her if she went to the motel he would
delete the photos in front of her.
34.

R.A. was scared and did not know what to do, so she went with him. At the motel he

refused to delete the photos and when she tried to walk out he grabbed her by the hair and had sex
with her against her will.
35.

R.A. did not report this rape because she was very scared. On that date he had shown

her pictures of other women that he has been with. Later on, R.A. recognized one of the women to be
Levi Velez, a woman Avalos had met after she went to the precinct to make a domestic violence
report.
36.

On that date he told R.A., "Listen to me very carefully. If you tell this to anyone, I know

where you live, you have a mother, a sister, and you have kids. I always carry a gun and I will kill
everyone and kill myself before I get arrested. You don't know how crazy I am."
37.

Over the next couple of months R.A. was emotionally distraught and depressed. She

was having trouble taking care of her infant children Ryan and Ivan Kumar. R.A. also had difficulty

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 57

concentrating on her classes at LaGuardia Community College, so she withdrew from school. R.A.
had been hoping to enroll in a nursing program.
38.

In March, 2013, Mandeep Kumar made a complaint about Officer Avalos coming to

R.A.’s family’s house based upon information provided by their nine year old son that Officer Avalos
was drinking a beer in their house.
39.

In April, 2013, Officer Avalos called R.A. from a private number and told her that she

might get a call from Internal Affairs ("IAB"). He said, "Do not tell them anything and don't say
anything bad about me. Before you say any fucking thing to anybody think about yourself and your
family, and you know what's going to happen." R.A. was very scared, so she did not tell Officer
Nolan of IAB anything about what Officer Avalos had done to her.
40.

Finally, in October, 2013, after R.A. had lost custody of her two infant children, R.A.

told Mandeep Kumar that Officer Avalos had raped her.
41.

Then, on January 29, 2014, R.A. sought counseling for her depression. She saw Rita

Lombardi, at Comprehensive Counseling.
42.

On February 5, 2014, R.A. went to see a psychiatrist, Dr. Yudmilla Davidov. She

began treating R.A. for depression and anxiety. She prescribed anti-depressants and anti-anxiety
medication which R.A. is still taking.
43.

R.A. never consented to have sex with Officer Avalos. The only reason she did not

report him was she was very afraid. At first, he manipulated her into trusting him and then he
blackmailed her into silence by threatening her and telling her he would kill her family.
44.

Mandeep Kumar was arrested for allegedly violating an Order of Protections at the

importuning of Officer Avalos, although Mandeep Kumar had merely contacted R.A. to discuss
getting back together.
45.

About ten days after Mandeep’s arrest Officer Harold Avalos came to his house and

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 58

served Mandeep with a third-party order of protection. At that time, Officer Avalos told Mandeep that
“women are bitches…you can’t trust them…my own bitch got me in big trouble and they took my
gun and shield away from me and put me behind the desk for eighteen months ”. He suggested to
Mandeep that he should get R.A. arrested.
46.

Mandeep told Officer Avalos that he thought R.A. had taken his passport and some

jewelry from his house, but that he did not actually see her do it.
47.

Officer Avalos told Mandeep that he must swear that he saw R.A. take the items or he

could not have her arrested. At Avalos’ urging, Mandeep filed a complaint stating that he saw R.A.
take the items.
48.

Avalos told Mandeep to call 911, that he would be in the area, and he would return to

take the complaint. Mandeep called 911 a few minutes after Avalos left his house, and shortly
thereafter he returned and took the complaint.
49.

R.A. told Mandeep that Officer Avalos then used the fact that she was going to be

arrested to scare her into seeing her on November 11, 2012.
50.

Later, Mandeep verified that Harold Avalos took R.A. to the Boulevard Motel on

November 11, 2012 by speaking to the motel clerk who provided Mandeep with the registration card
filled out by Officer Avalos.
51.

Mandeep also verified through registration records that Officer Avalos had taken R.A.

to that same motel under an assumed name on December 4, 2012 and at the end of March 2013.
52.

On March 24, 2013, Mandeep learned from his son that Officer Avalos had been

drinking beer at R.A.s house and he overheard him telling R.A. to get Mandeep arrested.
53.

On March 24, 2013, Mandeep contacted Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) and reported

his concerns to them (IAB Log # 12270-2013).
54.

For the next couple of months Mandeep made numerous reports to IAB, including an

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 59

incident in July, 2013 where Officer Avalos threatened Mandeep and told him, “You put complaints
about me. Nothing is going to happen to me. My PBA union is going to protect me. I feel like putting
every bullet in your head…. By the way, I’m not f***ing her anymore.” (IAB Log # 29846-2013).
55.

It was not until October, 2013 that Mandeep first learned from R.A. that Officer

Avalos had raped her. I told R.A. to report it to IAB which she did (IAB Log # 43986-2013).
56.

During this entire ordeal Mandeep Kumar has been suffering severe mental stress, and

has had difficulty concentrating, or figuring out how to proceed. To a great extent, Mandeep was
focused on taking care of his children and figuring out how to reestablish a relationship with R.A.
57.

In January, 2013, Mandeep Kumar began psychiatric treatment to help him cope with

this situation.
58.

On June 24, 2015, just prior to the commencement of an administrative hearing by

Internal Affairs of the N.Y.P.D., Officer Avalos admitted to five charges against him, including lying
three times to investigators of the N.Y.P.D.’s Internal Affairs Unit, having an inappropriate
relationship with a member of the public, and improperly downgrading a police report for no
legitimate purpose.
59.

At that time, he also agreed not to oppose being terminated as a police officer. A

decision on whether he will be terminated is now before Police Commissioner Bratton.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

(False Arrest as to both plaintiffs)
60. Plaintiff reiterates and realleges the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs as if stated
fully herein.
61. As a result of their actions. Defendants, under "color of law", deprived plaintiffs of their
right to freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourth,

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 60

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
62.

Defendant Avalos, acting under “color of law”, as R.A.’s purported “domestic

violence officer”, manipulated R.A. into first obtaining an Order of Protection against Mandeep
Kumar, and then convincing R.A. to have Mandeep arrested for allegedly violating the Order.
63.

In or about October, 2012, Mandeep Kumar was arrested due to Harold Avalos’s

urging of R.A. to have Mandeep arrested.
64.

Having stoked the anger of Mandeep Kumar, Harold Avalos then set the wheels in

motion to have R.A. arrested.
65.

First, Harold Avalos convinced R.A. to obtain a Third-Party Order of Protection

against Mandeep Kumar which to prevent Mandeep’s family from contacting R.A. They had been
trying to smooth things over between R.A. and Mandeep.
66.

R.A. obtained the Third-Party Order of Protection, and Harold Avalos personally

picked it up from her at her home. He then served it upon Mandeep Kumar, which he was not
supposed to do because he was not a Domestic Violence Officer.
67.

On that date, in October, 2012, Harold Avalos spoke to Mandeep Kumar and

commiserated with him over his situation with R.A. He told Mandeep that he too had been the subject
of a domestic violence complaint. He told Mandeep that the best way to get back at R.A. was to have
her arrested.
68.

It was on that date in October, 2012 that Harold Avalos convinced Mandeep to file a

police report of theft by R.A., but he convinced Mandeep to omit that the value of the property was
over $1,000 as his intention was to only have R.A. arrested for a misdemeanor petty larceny.
69.

Shortly after taking said complaint, Harold Avalos contacted R.A. and told her that

unfortunately she was going to be arrested based upon Mandeep’s allegations, but that he would help
her get through the booking process faster. He told her it was imperative that he talk to her in person.
70.

It was during this next meeting on or about November 11, 2012 that he first took R.A.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 61

to a motel and was unsuccessful in his sexual advances on her.
71.

A few days later R.A. was arrested and charged with petty larceny.

72.

Then, less than a month later Harold Avalos convinced R.A. to go out with him on her

birthday and got her so drunk and possibly drugged so that she does not recall how she ended up in a
motel room with Avalos. The first thing she recalls other than drinking at a bar and getting into a
taxicab is waking up naked at the motel where she observed vomit on the bathroom floor.
73.

When she confronted Avalos and told him she did not want to be there with him, he

told her to shut up and showed her photos and told her that he has a video of them having sex. He
threatened her if she told anyone he would put the video on the internet and make her famous.
74.

Over the next five months, Harold Avalos used the existence of the photos and video

as leverage to prevent R.A. from reporting him to the police.
75.

During this time, not only did Avalos convince R.A. to have Mandeep arrested two

more times, but it also led to Mandeep making more complaints against R.A.
76.

Avalos’s actions from October, 2012 throughout the entire ordeal were done under

“color of law” and he took advantage of his position of authority to insinuate himself in Plaintiff’s
lives and subjected them to the trials and tribulations of the criminal justice system, which included
deprivation of their liberty and restrictions on their ability to repair their relationship.
77.

Furthermore, Avalos scared R.A. into obtaining the Order of Protection against

Mandeep which led to starting a case in family Court and to a Family Court Order prohibiting
Mandeep from seeing his two minor children for many months.
78. Defendant subjected Plaintiffs to these deprivations of their rights either maliciously or
by acting with a reckless disregard for whether Plaintiffs’ rights would be violated by his actions.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendant Avalos, Plaintiffs and their two
minor children suffered emotional and physical injuries, endured great pain and mental suffering, and
were deprived of their physical liberty and otherwise had their liberty interests significantly restricted.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 62

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(Monell Claim as to both Plaintiffs)
64. Plaintiff reiterates and realleges the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs as if stated
fully herein.
65. Defendant City and N.Y.P.D., through The N.Y.C. Police Commissioner, as a municipal
policymaker, in the hiring, training and supervision of the Defendant officers, have pursued a policy
and custom of deliberate indifference to the rights of persons in their domain, and Plaintiffs, violating
Plaintiffs' rights to freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of the
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C.
1983.
66.

Prior to these incidents with plaintiffs the City of New York was aware or should have

been aware of the propensity of Officer Avalos to engage in inappropriate contact with females who
had sought out the protection of the N.Y.P.D. from domestic violence.
67.

The City of New York knew or should have known that Officer Avalos had a

propensity to take advantage of such vulnerable females, by manipulating them with his apparent
authority and knowledge of the criminal justice system.
68.

The City of New York acted with deliberate indifference by allowing Officer Avalos

to remain on the force, dealing with the public, and more specifically female victims of domestic
abuse.
69.

These failures directly led to the physical and mental abuses perpetrated by Officer

Avalos on R.A. and Mandeep Kumar.
70.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned policy and custom of deliberate

indifference of Defendants City and N.Y.P.D., Defendant officers committed the unlawful acts
referred to above. Thus, Defendant City is liable for Plaintiffs’ injuries.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 63

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(Malicious Prosecution as to both Plaintiffs)
71.

Plaintiff reiterates and realleges the facts stated in the preceding paragraphs as if stated

fully herein.
72.

The actions of Defendant Avalos herein constituted malicious prosecution of plaintiffs

in that he was the individual who orchestrated the criminal prosecutions of each plaintiff by
manipulating the other spouse to have the other arrested.
73.

The machinations by Avalos included the planting in each plaintiff’s mind the idea of

having the other arrested, and included prodding, urging and even the suggesting the creation of
outright lies accusing the other of criminality.
74.

Absent these improper actions of Avalos each plaintiff would not have been subjected

to these various prosecutions.
75.

These various prosecutions were done absent probable cause, and were initiated and

put into motion by Officer Avalos in bad faith with malicious intent.
76.

These various prosecutions were ultimately resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.

77.

During the time period that these prosecutions went on, each plaintiff was caused to

suffer a deprivation to their liberty interests, such that at times they were denied the right to live with
or visit their minor children, due to the existence of Orders of Protection that required them to stay
away from their children.
78.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs suffered deprivation of liberty in that their marriage was

placed into further discord and they were forced to live separate and apart which would not have
occurred absent Officer Avalos’ improper actions.
79.

Consequently, due to these and other related deprivations, the malicious prosecutions

by Officer Avalos rose to a level such as to constitute a deprivation of a federally protected libery
interest.

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 64

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:
1. Enter a judgment that defendants, by their actions, violated Plaintiffs' rights under state law,
and violated Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution; and,
2. Enter a judgment, jointly and severally against Defendant Avalos and The City of New
York for compensatory damages in the amount of FIVE MILLION ($5,000,000.00) Dollars; and,
3. Enter a judgment, jointly and severally against the Defendant officer and The City of New
York for punitive damages in the amount of TEN MILLION ($10,000,000.00) Dollars; and,
4. Enter an Order:
a) Awarding plaintiff’s reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988;
b) Granting such other and further relief which to the Court seems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated: New York, New York
October 13, 2015
RESPECTFULLY,
/s/
STEVEN A. HOFFNER, ESQ.
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
325 Broadway, Suite 505
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 941-8330
Fax: (646)810-4031

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 65

sahoffner@aol.com

 Case 1:15-cv-03787-WFK-PK Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 66

VERIFICATION
STEVEN A. HOFFNER, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New
York states:
That the affirmant is the attorney of record for the plaintiffs in the within action.
That the affirmant has read the foregoing Complaint and knows the contents thereof.
That the same is true as to affirmant's knowledge, except as to matters therein alleged to be on
information and belief, and as to those matters affirmant believes them to be true.
That the reason this verification is made by affirmant is because the plaintiffs do not reside in
the county wherein affirmant maintains his office.
That the grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as
follows:
investigation, client conferences, and review of the file.
The undersigned affirms that the following statements are true, under the penalties of perjury.

Dated: New York, New York
October 13, 2015
__________/s/______________
STEVEN A. HOFFNER, Esq.

 Case Document 10 Filed 10/13/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID 67