Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
KAMIESHA MCCLAIN, on her own behalf and
as mother and next friend of her minor son A.W.,
and TRINA MCCLAIN,
Plaintiffs,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK; ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTIN
ASHENFELTER; NYPD POLICE OFFICER
KEVIN ALLEN, Shield No. 17619; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER YURIY DEMCHENKO, Shield
No. 4740; NYPD SERGEANT “FNU” [First Name
Unknown] GARGIN; NYPD SERGEANT
MATTHE [first name may have further letters]
PEREIRA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU”
KATS1, Shield No. 29087; NYPD DEPUTY
INSPECTOR “FNU” TAYLOR; NYPD POLICE
OFFICER “FNU” FINN; NYPD POLICE
SERGEANT “FNU” KISH2; NYPD LIEUTENANT
ZALESKI3; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JOHN
FREISEN; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU”
LUKESON4; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU”
SHIMIN; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU”
CIFUENTES; ANY OTHER JOHN DOES
MEMBERS OF THE NYPD WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH OF
PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT OR IN PLAINTIFF
KAMIESHA’s ARREST OR PROSECUTION,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NYPD’s
EMERGENCY SERVICES UNIT’S (“ESU”) “A

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1 Pursuant to the NYPD “Wheel,” NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” KATS may now be a
Sergeant whose full name is Masim Kats, and whose Shield No. is now 3702, but they were unable
to state that definitively.
2 Pursuant to the NYPD “Wheel,” NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” KISH’s full name may be
Frank Kish, Shield No. 2413, but they were unable to state that definitively.
3Pursuant to the NYPD “Wheel,” NYPD LIEUTENANT ZALESKI’s full name may be
Christopher Zaleski, but they were unable to state that definitively.
4 Pursuant to the NYPD “Wheel,” NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” LUKESON’s full name may
be James Lukeson, but they were unable to state that definitively.

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 2 of 16

TEAM”; JOHN DOES and RICHARD ROES,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X

)
)
)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiffs seek relief for the defendants’ violation of

their rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; by the United States
Constitution, including its Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and by the laws and Constitution of
the State of New York. The plaintiffs seek damages, both compensatory and punitive, affirmative
and equitable relief, an award of costs and attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this
court deems equitable and just.
JURISDICTION
2.

This action is brought pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, including its

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred
upon this court by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4), this being an
action seeking redress for the violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
3.

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on each and every one of their claims as pleaded

herein.
VENUE
4.

Venue is proper for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 (a), (b) and (c).

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 3 of 16

PARTIES
5.

Plaintiffs KAMIESHA MCCLAIN, on Her Own Behalf and As Mother and Next

Friend of her minor son A.W., and TRINA MCCLAIN at all times relevant herein were residents of
the State of New York, County of the Kings. A.W at the time of the incident was 6 years old.
Plaintiffs are African-American.
6.

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is and was at all times relevant herein a

municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized by
law to maintain a police department, which acts as its agent in the area of law enforcement and for
which it is ultimately responsible. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK assumes the risks
incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the employment of police officers as said risk
attaches to the public consumers of the services provided by the New York City Police Department.
7.

Defendants ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTIN ASHENFELTER;

NYPD POLICE OFFICER KEVIN ALLEN, Shield No. 17619; NYPD POLICE OFFICER
YURIY DEMCHENKO, Shield No. 4740; NYPD SERGEANT “FNU” [First Name Unknown]
GARGIN; NYPD SERGEANT MATTHE [first name may have further letters] PEREIRA; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER “FNU” KATS, Shield No. 29087; NYPD DEPUTY INSPECTOR “FNU”
TAYLOR; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” FINN; NYPD POLICE SERGEANT “FNU”
KISH; NYPD LIEUTENANT ZALESKI; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JOHN FREISEN; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER “FNU” LUKESON; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” SHIMIN; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER “FNU” CIFUENTES; ANY OTHER JOHN DOES MEMBERS OF THE
NYPD WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH OF PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT OR IN
PLAINTIFF KAMIESHA’s ARREST OR PROSECUTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NYPD’s EMERGENCY SERVICES UNIT’S (“ESU”)
3

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 4 of 16

“A TEAM”; and JOHN DOES are and were at all times relevant herein duly appointed and acting
officers, servants, employees and agents of THE CITY OF NEW YORK and/or the New York City
Police Department (NYPD), a municipal agency of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK and/or
the Kings County District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor.
Defendants are and were at all times relevant herein acting under color of state law in the course and
scope of their duties and functions as officers, agents, servants, and employees of defendant THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, were acting for, and on behalf of, and with the power and authority vested
in them by THE CITY OF NEW YORK and the New York City Police Department and / or the
Kings County District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, and
were otherwise performing and engaging in conduct incidental to the performance of their lawful
functions in the course of their duties. Defendants ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTIN
ASHENFELTER; NYPD POLICE OFFICER KEVIN ALLEN, Shield No. 17619; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER YURIY DEMCHENKO, Shield No. 4740; NYPD SERGEANT “FNU” [First
Name Unknown] GARGIN; NYPD SERGEANT MATTHE [first name may have further letters]
PEREIRA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” KATS, Shield No. 29087; NYPD DEPUTY
INSPECTOR “FNU” TAYLOR; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” FINN; NYPD POLICE
SERGEANT “FNU” KISH; NYPD LIEUTENANT ZALESKI; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JOHN
FREISEN; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” LUKESON; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU”
SHIMIN; NYPD POLICE OFFICER “FNU” CIFUENTES; ANY OTHER JOHN DOES
MEMBERS OF THE NYPD WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH OF PLAINTIFFS’
APARTMENT OR IN PLAINTIFF KAMIESHA’s ARREST OR PROSECUTION, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NYPD’s EMERGENCY
SERVICES UNIT’S (“ESU”) “A TEAM”; and JOHN DOES are sued individually.
4

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 5 of 16

8.

Defendants ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTIN ASHENFELTER;

NYPD SERGEANT “FNU” [First Name Unknown] GARGIN; NYPD SERGEANT MATTHE
[first name may have further letters] PEREIRA; NYPD DEPUTY INSPECTOR “FNU” TAYLOR;
NYPD POLICE SERGEANT “FNU” KISH; NYPD LIEUTENANT ZALESKI; ANY OTHER
JOHN DOES MEMBERS OF THE NYPD [of supervisory rank] WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE
SEARCH OF PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT OR IN PLAINTIFF KAMIESHA’s ARREST OR
PROSECUTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
NYPD’s EMERGENCY SERVICES UNIT’S (“ESU”) “A TEAM” and RICHARD ROES are and
were at all times relevant herein duly appointed and acting supervisory officers, servants, employees
and agents of THE CITY OF NEW YORK and/or the New York City Police Department and/or the
Kings County District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor,
responsible for the training, retention, supervision, discipline and control of subordinate members of
the police department and/or Kings County District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the
Special Narcotics Prosecutor under their command. Defendants are and were at all times relevant
herein acting under color of state law in the course and scope of their duties and functions as
supervisory officers, agents, servants, and employees of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK
and/or Kings County District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the Special Narcotics
Prosecutor, were acting for, and on behalf of, and with the power and authority vested in them by
THE CITY OF NEW YORK and the New York City Police Department and/or Kings County
District Attorney’s Office and/or the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, and were otherwise
performing and engaging in conduct incidental to the performance of their lawful functions in the
course of their duties. Defendants ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUSTIN
ASHENFELTER; NYPD SERGEANT “FNU” [First Name Unknown] GARGIN; NYPD
5

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 6 of 16

SERGEANT MATTHE [first name may have further letters] PEREIRA; NYPD DEPUTY
INSPECTOR “FNU” TAYLOR; NYPD POLICE SERGEANT “FNU” KISH; NYPD
LIEUTENANT ZALESKI; ANY OTHER JOHN DOES MEMBERS OF THE NYPD [of
supervisory rank] WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH OF PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT
OR IN PLAINTIFF KAMIESHA’s ARREST OR PROSECUTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NYPD’s EMERGENCY SERVICES UNIT’S
(“ESU”) “A TEAM” and RICHARD ROES are sued individually.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.

On January 12, 2016, approximately 6 a.m., Plaintiffs were in their home at 3415

Neptune Avenue, Apt. 2101, Brooklyn, NY.
10.

Plaintiff KAMIESHA MCCLAIN (“KAMIESHA”) is the leaseholder of the

apartment.
11.

Plaintiff A.W. is KAMIESHA’s son, and on January 12, 2016 was six years old.

12.

Plaintiff TRINA MCCLAIN (“TRINA”) is KAMIESHA’s mother.

13.

Plaintiff KAMIESHA was getting ready for work at that time, and was wearing only

her panties and bra.
14.

Plaintiff KAMIESHA heard drilling, and heard someone say, in sum and substance,

“it’s the fucking police – get back.”
15.

Plaintiffs’ apartment door was then busted in, and a large number of JOHN DOES

members of the NYPD - perhaps as many as twenty - rushed into the apartment.
16.

The JOHN DOES members of the NYPD “team” that entered - and then ransacked -

Plaintiffs’ home were Defendants ALLEN, DEMCHENKO, GARGIN, PEREIRA, KATS,
TAYLOR, FINN, KISH, ZALESKI, FREISEN, LUKESON, SHIMIN, CIFUENTES, and ANY
6

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 7 of 16

OTHER JOHN DOES MEMBERS OF THE NYPD WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SEARCH
OF PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT OR IN PLAINTIFF KAMIESHA’s ARREST AND
PROSECUTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
NYPD’s EMERGENCY SERVICES UNIT’S (“ESU”) “A TEAM.”
17.

All of the JOHN DOES who entered the apartment were male.

18.

Some of these JOHN DOES members of the NYPD were brandishing assault rifles

and had shields, and others of them had drawn pistols.
19.

The JOHN DOES forced KAMIESHA into a chair and handcuffed her with an

excessive and painful tightness.
20.

KAMIESHA remained in that chair, handcuffed with an excessive and punitive

tightness, and wearing only her panties and bra, for approximately the next half hour while the
JOHN DOES proceeded to ransack her home and terrify A.W. and TRINA in another part of the
apartment.
21.

The JOHN DOES would not let KAMIESHA see A.W. or TRINA while they were

in Plaintiffs’ home.
22.

The JOHN DOES eventually partially acceded to KAMIESHA’s request for proper

clothing, and brought her from elsewhere in her home a sweater and sweat pants, and one of the
JOHN DOES put the pants on KAMIESHA.
23.

The JOHN DOES had asked KAMIESHA if she wanted her mother to put her pants

on her rather one of the JOHN DOES, and KAMIESHA had said yes.
24.

Nonetheless, a JOHN DOE put KAMIESHA’s pants on over her bare legs and

panties and her mother was not permitted to do so.
25.

KAMIESHA requested a different shirt, and that request was denied.
7

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 8 of 16

26.

KAMIESHA’s repeated requests to loosen the excessively tight and painful

handcuffs were ignored.
27.

Due to the excessively tight and painful handcuffs KAMIESHA’s hands swelled up

for a day or so.
28.

The JOHN DOES pointed their guns at the heads of A.W. and TRINA, terrifying

them, and told them, in sum and substance, to “get the fuck down on the floor.”
29.

A.W. and TRINA were held on the floor for approximately 20 minutes by the JOHN

DOES, then were told to sit in chairs.
30.

A.W. and TRINA requested to use the bathroom, but that request was denied by the

JOHN DOES.
31.

The JOHN DOES ransacked the bedroom that TRINA and A.W. shared, as well as

the living room, the kitchen, a closet, and a linen closet, throwing numerous items all over the floor
and tearing items of property to pieces, as well as breaking A.W.’s bed and making a hole in one of
the walls.
32.

Oddly, the JOHN DOES did not ransack KAMIESHA’s bedroom.

33.

After approximately half an hour in the apartment the JOHN DOES removed

KAMIESHA from the apartment and took her to the NYPD 60th Precinct against her will, still
handcuffed with an excessive and painful tightness.
34.

When KAMIESHA was removed from the apartment, one of the JOHN DOES told

her that if no drugs were found they would release her from the precinct.
35.

After KAMIESHA was removed from the apartment, the JOHN DOES told TRINA

that she had to vacate the apartment with A.W. and the family dog from approximately 8 a.m. to 10
a.m., which they did.
8

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 9 of 16

36.

When TRINA and A.W. and their dog returned to the apartment at approximately 10

a.m. the JOHN DOES were gone, the front door to their apartment was totally off the hinges, and
the JOHN DOES had done nothing to secure the apartment, which was left wide open for anyone to
enter should they have wished to do so.
37.

At the 60th precinct a female JOHN DOE member of the NYPD searched

KAMIESHA, and told KAMIESHA to shake her bra and felt all around KAMIESHA’s person in an
intrusive manner.
38.

No contraband was found on KAMIESHA.

39.

KAMIESHA was held in a cell at the 60th Precinct all day long.

40.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. KAMIESHA was transferred to Brooklyn Central

Booking, where she was held overnight.
41.

At approximately 11 a.m. the next day, January 13, 2016, KAMIESHA was

arraigned and released on her own recognizance.
42.

Defendant ALLEN had, on January 8, 2016, applied for and obtained a warrant to

search Plaintiffs’ home and the person of KAMIESHA’s brother, based upon representations made
by Defendant ALLEN in an affidavit submitted to the Criminal Court that on two alleged occasions
a confidential informant had purchased crack cocaine from KAMIESHA’s brother at the home.
43.

Defendant ALLEN’s affidavit to the Criminal Court in support of the application for

the search warrant was also signed as “approved” by Defendant ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY JUSTIN ASHENFELTER.
44.

According to Defendant ALLEN’s testimony to the Criminal Court, Defendant

ALLEN prepared his affidavit along with Defendant ASHENFELTER.
45.

Defendants ALLEN and ASHENFELTER either knew, or should have known, that
9

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 10 of 16

there was a significant chance that the confidential informant had lied to them, and that no drugs in
fact had been purchased at the home from KAMIESHA’s brother or from anyone else.
46.

KAMIESHA’s brother never sold any drugs from Plaintiffs’ home, or had any other

drug-related connections concerning Plaintiffs’ home.
47.

Although he visited the apartment every few weeks or so, and on some holidays,

Plaintiff KAMIESHA’s brother did not live with - and had never lived with - Plaintiffs at Plaintiffs’
home.
48.

Plaintiff KAMIESHA’s brother also did not have keys to Plaintiffs’ apartment, and

would not be present in Plaintiffs’ home if Plaintiff KAMIESHA were not also present.
49.

Plaintiffs had lived at this home for approximately four years prior to this incident.

50.

On information and belief, Defendants ALLEN and ASHENFELTER either knew,

or should have known, that the confidential informant was not – contrary to the assertions made in
his affidavit – reliable.
51.

The confidential informant is identified in the affidavit as a “former narcotics user.”

52.

On information and belief, it is a common practice by the NYPD and the Kings

County District Attorney’s office and the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor to pay
confidential informants for information rendered concerning the existence of narcotics activity
(and/or to provide a favorable plea arrangement in exchange for such information rendered), which
gives confidential informants a material incentive to lie in order to obtain these monetary / pleabased benefits.
53.

Defendant DEMCHENKO is the deponent on the Criminal Court Complaint lodged

against Plaintiff, and falsely alleged therein, under penalty of perjury, that crack cocaine, marijuana,
and codeine were found in various locations throughout the apartment upon the execution of the
10

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 11 of 16

search warrant.
54.

These allegations were lies. There was no crack cocaine, marijuana, or codeine in

Plaintiffs’ apartment and none of these substances were recovered by Defendants inside of Plaintiffs’
apartment.
55.

Defendant ALLEN also falsely averred in an Affidavit of Inventory of Property

Taken that the various narcotics listed on NYPD property vouchers were recovered via the search
conducted pursuant to the warrant.
56.

Defendant DEMCHENKO also lied to the prosecutor’s office and told them that

Plaintiff KAMIESHA MCCLAIN had stated to him in substance that she smokes weed and that the
only thing they may find is weed in her bedroom.
57.

Defendant PEREIRA is listed on the NYPD Arrest and Complaint reports as the

Supervisor Approving Plaintiff KAMIESHA’s arrest.
58.

After she was released on her own recognizance at her arraignment, KAMIESHA

had to appear in Criminal Court to defend against the charges that had been fabricated against her
approximately 10 times over the next eleven months.
59.

On or about December 5, 2016 KAMIESHA accepted an Adjournment in

Contemplation of Dismissal (“ACD”) with immediate sealing, which resulted in the dismissal of the
charges against her.
60.

On information and belief KAMIESHA was offered the ACD because the Kings

County District Attorney’s Office and / or the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor could not,
or did not want to, produce their unreliable confidential informant pursuant to KAMIESHA’s

11

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 12 of 16

attorney’s application for a Darden5 hearing.
FIRST CLAIM

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. §1983
61.

The plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in all previous

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
62.

By their conduct and actions in falsely arresting and imprisoning plaintiffs,

assaulting and battering plaintiffs, trespassing upon plaintiffs and their homes, unlawfully obtaining
a warrant for the search of plaintiffs’ homes and executing it improperly, converting plaintiffs’
property, abusing process against, subjecting plaintiffs to unreasonable conditions of confinement,
violating rights to equal protection of, violating rights to due process of plaintiffs (including
fabricating evidence), invading plaintiffs’ privacy and dignity, failing to intercede on behalf of the
plaintiffs and in failing to protect the plaintiffs from the unjustified and unconstitutional treatment
they received at the hands of other defendants, Defendants ASHENFELTER; ALLEN;
DEMCHENKO; GARGIN; PEREIRA; KATS; TAYLOR; FINN; KISH; ZALESKI; FREISEN;
LUKESON; SHIMIN; CIFUENTES; DOES; and/or ROES, acting under color of law and without
lawful justification, intentionally, maliciously, and with a deliberate indifference to or a reckless
disregard for the natural and probable consequences of their acts, caused injury and damage in
violation of plaintiffs’ constitutional rights as guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the United
States Constitution, including its Fourth and Fourteenth amendments.
63.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs were deprived of their liberty and property,

experienced pain and suffering, psychological and emotional injury, great humiliation, costs and

5 People v Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177 (1974).
12

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 13 of 16

expenses, and were otherwise damaged and injured.
SECOND CLAIM

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND 42 U.S.C. §1983
64.

The plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in all previous

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
65.

By their conduct in failing to remedy the wrongs committed by their subordinates

and in failing to properly train, supervise, or discipline their subordinates, supervisory defendants
ASHENFELTER; GARGIN; PEREIRA; TAYLOR; KISH; ZALESKI; and/or ROES caused
damage and injury in violation of plaintiffs’ rights guaranteed under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the
United States Constitution, including its Fourth and Fourteenth amendments.
66.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs were deprived of their liberty and property,

experienced pain and suffering, psychological and emotional injury, great humiliation, costs and
expenses, and were otherwise damaged and injured.
THIRD CLAIM
LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT THE CITY OF NEW YORK
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
67.

The plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in all previous

Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
68.

At all times material to this complaint, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

acting through its police department, and through the individual defendants had de facto policies,
practices, customs and usages which were a direct and proximate cause of the unconstitutional
conduct alleged herein.
69.

At all times material to this complaint, defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
13

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 14 of 16

acting through its police department, and through the individual defendants, had de facto policies,
practices, customs, and usages of failing to properly train, screen, supervise, or discipline employees
and police officers, and of failing to inform the individual defendants’ supervisors of their need to
train, screen, supervise or discipline said defendants. These policies, practices, customs, and usages
were a direct and proximate cause of the unconstitutional conduct alleged herein.
70.

At all times material to this complaint, the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

acting through its police department and through the individual defendants, had de facto policies,
practices, customs and/or usages of encouraging and/or tacitly sanctioning the cover-up of other law
enforcement officers’ misconduct, through the fabrication of false accounts and evidence and/or
through “the blue wall of silence.” Such policies, practices, customs and/or usages are a direct and
proximate cause of the unconstitutional conduct alleged herein.
71.

At all times material to this complaint, the defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK,

acting through its police department and through the individual defendants, had de facto policies,
practices, customs and/or usages of engaging in illegal and harassing raids and arrests, particularly
upon people of Hispanic or African-American ethnicity, and failing to assure that proper procedures
were implemented regarding the obtaining of and /or execution of search warrants and the use of
information garnered through confidential informants, and of failing to properly train, supervise or
discipline police supervisors and subordinate officers to prevent them from failing to assure that
proper procedures were implemented. Such policies, practices, customs and/or usages are a direct
and proximate cause of the unconstitutional conduct alleged herein.
72.

Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK failed to provide any formal training to its

police officers, either during the Police Academy or after, on the constitutional prohibitions on
causing unnecessary and excessive damage during the execution of search warrants.
14

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 15 of 16

73.

Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK maintained no written guidelines on the

constitutional prohibitions on causing unnecessary and excessive damage during the execution of
search warrants.
74.

Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK knew to a moral certainty that its police

officers would be required to obtain and execute search warrants, and the City empowered them to
do so, and therefore the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations on how to obtain them
and on causing unnecessary or excessive damage during the execution of a search warrant was
obvious.
75.

The failure of defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK to train its police officers or

provide guidelines to its officers in the constitutional prohibitions on obtaining, and on causing
unnecessary and excessive damage during the execution of, search warrants amounts to deliberate
indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact.
76.

Defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK implemented, enforced, encouraged,

sanctioned and/or ratified policies, practices, and/or customs of failing to train its police officers and
failing to implement guidelines on the constitutional prohibitions on obtaining, and on causing
unnecessary and excessive damage during, the execution of search warrants.
77.

By implementing, enforcing, encouraging, sanctioning and/or ratifying these policies,

practices, and/or customs, defendant the CITY OF NEW YORK caused the Plaintiffs to loss of their
privacy, dignity, and liberty, and to be subjected to excessive and/or unnecessary destruction of
property during the search of their home, and deprived of property without due process of law, in
violation of their rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
78.

As a result of the foregoing, plaintiffs were deprived of their liberty and property,
15

 Case 1:18-cv-11836-JGK-OTW Document 1 Filed 12/17/18 Page 16 of 16

experienced pain and suffering, psychological and emotional injury, great humiliation, costs and
expenses, and were otherwise damaged and injured.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand the following relief jointly and severally against all of
the defendants:
a. Compensatory damages;
b. Punitive damages;
c. The convening and empaneling of a jury to consider the merits of the claims
herein;
d. Costs and interest and attorney’s fees;
e. Such other and further relief as this court may deem appropriate and equitable.

Dated:

New York, New York
December 17, 2018
__________/S/__________________
JEFFREY A. ROTHMAN, Esq.
Law Office of Jeffrey A. Rothman
315 Broadway, Suite 200
New York, New York 10007
(212) 227-2980
Attorney for Plaintiffs

16