Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x INDEX NO.:
WILLIAMS LORANCE, SUMMONS
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against- The Basis of Venue is:
Location of Incident
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYPD POLICE OFFICER
ADAN SUAZORODAS, SHIELD NO. 10750, AND Plaintiff designates Kings
NYPD POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES NUMBERS
County as the place of trial.
ONE THROUGH TEN,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
To the above named Defendants:
You are hereby summoned to answer the Verified Complaint in this action, and to serve
a copy of your Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint, or, if the Verified Complaint is not
served with this Summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff's attorneys within
twenty days after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is
made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of
service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer,
judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
DATED: New York, New York
September 27, 2022
Yours, etc.
Gabriella Orozco, Esq.
Shulman-Hill, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1 State Street Plaza
15th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(518) 546-8784
TO: THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Corporation Counsel, 100 Church Street, NY, NY 10007
OFFICER ADAN SUAZORODAS, 70th PCT, 154 Lawrence Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
11230
1 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x
WILLIAMS LORANCE,
INDEX NO.:
Plaintiff,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYPD POLICE OFFICER
ADAN SUAZORODAS, SHIELD NO. 10750, AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NYPD POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES NUMBERS
ONE THROUGH TEN,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff WILLIAMS LORANCE, by his attorneys, Shulman-Hill, PLLC, as and for his
Verified Complaint herein, alleges upon information and belief as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a civil rights action to recover money damages arising out of defendants’ violation of
Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and of
rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, and the common law and the laws of the State of New York. On September 24,
2021, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Plaintiff Williams Lorance, while lawfully in the vicinity of
Albermale Road and Flatbush Avenue, County of Kings, New York, was subject to an unlawful
arrest, detention, assault, battery and excessive use of force by defendant Police Officers.
Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§§ 8 – 802 and his constitutional, common law and statutory rights when the individual
defendants unlawfully stopped, detained, assaulted, battered, subjected to excessive force,
passed along false accusations to prosecuting attorneys and engaged in the malicious
prosecution of Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, the common law and the laws of the State of New York.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Williams Lorance is a resident of the state of New York.
2. NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No. 10750 is and was at all times relevant herein
an Officer with the New York City Police Department.
-2-
2 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
3. NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No. 10750 is being sued in their individual and
official capacity.
4. Currently and at all times relevant herein, NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No.
10750 was assigned to the 70th Police Precinct of the NYPD.
5. NYPD Police Officers John Does Numbers One Through Ten are and were at all times relevant
herein officers, employees, and agents of the New York City Police Department.
6. NYPD Police Officers John Does Numbers One Through Ten are being sued in their individual
and official capacities.
7. At all times relevant herein, the individual defendants were acting under color of state law in
the course and scope of their duties and functions as agents, servants, employees and officers
of the New York City Police Department, and otherwise performed and engaged in conduct
incidental to the performance of their lawful functions in the course of their duties. They were
acting for and on behalf of the New York City Police Department at all times relevant herein,
with the power and authority vested in them as officers, agents and employees of the New York
City Police Department and incidental to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees
and agents of the New York City Police Department.
8. Defendant City of New York is 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. The defendant
City of New York assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the
employment of police officers as said risks attach to the public consumers of the services
provided by the New York City Police Department.
9. Plaintiff in furtherance of his causes of action brought pursuant to New York State law filed a
timely Notice of Claim against the City of New York in compliance with the Municipal Law
Section 50 and in accordance with New York State law.
10. In accordance with New York State law and General Municipal Law Section 50, Plaintiff
testified at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-H on February 28,
2022.
11. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since service of said Notice of Claim was filed and
the City of New York has failed to pay or adjust the claims.
12. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602,
involving intentional actions, as well as the defendant, and/or defendants, having acted in
reckless disregard for the safety of others, as well as having performed intentional acts.
13. Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all the
lower Courts of the State of New York.
-3-
3 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
14. On September 24, 2021, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Plaintiff was present in the vicinity of
Albermarle Road and Flatbush Avenue, County of Kings, New York, when the defendant Police
Officers unlawfully arrested Plaintiff.
15. Plaintiff was driving when he pulled over on Flatbush Avenue to make a phone call.
16. The driver of an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows approached Plaintiff, made a u-turn,
pulled up behind Plaintiff’s vehicle, and turned on the vehicle’s overhead lights.
17. Approximately two Defendant officers exited the unmarked vehicle and approached Plaintiff.
18. Plaintiff rolled down his window and asked “What’s the problem?”
19. Defendant Officers requested Plaintiff hand over his license and registration, and Plaintiff did
so.
20. Defendant Officers then asked Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle.
21. Defendant Officers removed from Plaintiff’s front pocket a small knife that he had used earlier
in the day to cut wires while installing new lights for his vehicle.
22. Defendant Officers handcuffed Plaintiff tightly, causing significant bruising and cuts to his
arms and wrists.
23. Despite Plaintiff’s pleas for information, none of the Defendant Officers told him that he was
being arrested, what he was being arrested for, or where he was being taken.
24. Defendant Officers placed Plaintiff inside a police vehicle and transported him to the 70th
precinct where he was searched and placed into a cell.
25. Eventually, the Defendant Officers took Plaintiff into an interrogation room where they
questioned him.
26. Plaintiff was placed back into the cell where he remained for approximately an hour before he
was removed to be processed.
27. The Defendant officers fingerprinted and photographed Plaintiff.
28. The Defendant Officers informed Plaintiff that they needed to take his DNA in order to give
him a Desk Appearance Ticket.
29. Defendant Officers further informed Plaintiff that if he refused they would have to charge him
with obstruction because of a new law.
-4-
4 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
30. Defendant Officer stated that if Plaintiff refused to give DNA, Plaintiff would have to be
processed again for the obstruction charge before he was allowed to leave.
31. Plaintiff submitted to the DNA test and was placed back into the cell.
32. During his time in custody, Defendant Officers pushed Plaintiff into the cell and shoved his
head against the cell wall.
33. Plaintiff informed Defendant Officers that they pushed on his abdomen, causing him to feel
nauseous.
34. As a result, Plaintiff requested water or anything that would help with the nausea.
35. Defendant Officer told Plaintiff to get it himself when he is released.
36. Eventually, Plaintiff vomited in the cell and was left to sit next to the vomit until he was
released.
37. While Plaintiff was in custody, the Defendant police officers provided the Kings County
District Attorney’s Office with the false, misleading and/or incomplete information that
Plaintiff committed a crime.
38. Specifically, the defendant police officers falsely stated to the Kings County District
Attorney’s Office that Plaintiff was engaged in Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth
Degree and Damaged Glass.
39. Plaintiff was released with a Desk Appearance ticket after spending approximately 9 hours in
custody.
40. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on February 15, 2022 after three court appearances.
41. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff doesn’t feel comfortable driving around the city because
whenever he sees a patrol car he becomes nervous and begins sweating profusely. Therefore,
he was unable to return to his job where he is required to drive.
42. At no time relevant herein did Plaintiff commit a crime or violate the law in any way, nor did
the police officers have an objective reason to accuse Plaintiff of committing a crime or
violating the law in any way.
43. At no point did Defendant Officers recover any drugs, weapons, graffiti instruments, or other
illegal contraband from Plaintiff or from a location that was in Plaintiff's possession, custody,
or control.
44. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and handcuffed by defendant officers without
legal justification or probable cause, unlawfully fingerprinted, photographed and searched, and
unlawfully detained.
-5-
5 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
45. Some of the police officer defendants observed the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
Constitution of the United States and New York State Law and did nothing to prevent their
fellow officers from unjustifiably assaulting, battering, and using excessive force against
Plaintiff.
46. The unlawful assault, battery, and use of excessive force by the individually named defendants
caused Plaintiff to sustain physical, psychological and emotional trauma.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Stop, Question, and Search
47. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
48. The illegal approach, pursuit, stop and grab employed by defendants herein terminated
Plaintiff’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.
49. The conduct of defendants in approaching, stopping, and grabbing Plaintiff was performed
under color of law and without any reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally
required grounds.
50. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York.
51. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
52. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights:
Unlawful Seizure and Deprivation of Liberty
53. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
54. The individually named police officer defendants, while acting in concert and within the scope
of their authority, caused Plaintiff to be seized, unlawfully searched, falsely arrested, and falsely
imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, in
violation of Plaintiff’s right to be free of an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States and to be free of a deprivation of liberty under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
-6-
6 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
55. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to physical, emotional and psychological injuries.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
False Imprisonment
56. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
57. The acts and conduct of the defendants constitute false arrest and false imprisonment under the
laws of the State of New York. Defendants intended to confine Plaintiff and, in fact, confined
Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement. In addition, Plaintiff did not consent
to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
58. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York and the United States Constitution.
59. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
60. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
61. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to loss of liberty, emotional and psychological injuries.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth And Fourteenth Amendment Rights:
Excessive Force
62. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
63. The use of excessive force by defendants by, amongst other things, roughly handcuffing Plaintiff,
pushing Plaintiff into a cell, pushing Plaintiff’s head against the cell constituted objectively
unreasonable physical seizures of Plaintiff in violation of his rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and to be free of a deprivation of
liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
64. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of his
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
-7-
7 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
65. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
66. By the actions described herein, defendants, each acting individually and in concert with each
other, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, conduct utterly intolerable in a civilized
community, which negligently caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. The acts and conduct
of the defendants were the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff and
violated Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution
of the State of New York.
67. The acts and conduct of the defendants were the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage
to Plaintiff and violated Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights as guaranteed Plaintiff by the
laws and Constitution of the State of New York.
68. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the
laws of the State of New York.
69. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
70. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the
doctrine of respondeat superior.
71. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision
72. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
73. The City of New York and its employees, servants and/or agents acting within the scope of
their employment did negligently hire, retain, train and supervise defendants, individuals who
were unfit for the performance of police duties on the aforementioned dates at the
aforementioned locations.
74. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to physical, emotional and psychological injuries.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Intervene
-8-
8 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
75. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
76. The defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff, but were present when other officers
violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of
Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights were being violated in their presence by other officers.
77. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein.
78. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s suffered serious injury, his liberty was restricted for an
extended period of time, he was put in fear of his safety, his injuries worsened, he did not
receive necessary medical treatment, and he was humiliated and subject to other physical
constraints.
79. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York.
80. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
81. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
82. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fourth And Fourteenth Amendment Rights:
Denial of Right to Fair Trial/Due Process
83. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
84. Defendants, individually and collectively, manufactured and/or withheld false evidence and
forwarded this false evidence to prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
85. Defendants filled out false and misleading police reports and forwarded them to prosecutors
in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
86. Defendants signed false and misleading criminal court affidavits and forwarded them to
prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office.
87. In withholding/creating false evidence against Plaintiff, and in providing/withholding
information with respect thereto, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due
-9-
9 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
process and fair trial under the New York State Constitution and under the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to be free to deprivation
of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
88. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained, inter alia, loss of the right to due process and
a fair trial, loss of liberty, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and deprivation
of his constitutional rights.
89. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
90. The City, as the employer of the officer Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
91. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries including,
but not limited to: economic, emotional and psychological injuries.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Malicious Prosecution
92. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
93. The acts and conduct of the Defendants constitute malicious prosecution under the United
States Constitution.
94. Defendants commenced and continued a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff.
95. There was actual malice and an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding against
Plaintiff and for each of the charges for which they were prosecuted.
96. The prosecution and criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff’s favor on the
aforementioned dates.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs
97. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
98. Defendants despite being aware that Plaintiff was suffering the rejection of his kidney implant
and required medication and additional treatment from medical professionals, delayed
Plaintiff’s medical treatment and refused to administer and properly procure immediate and
adequate medical attention.
- 10 -
10 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
99. The delay in medical treatment to Plaintiff’s injuries resulted in a month-long hospitalization,
increased severity in Plaintiff’s nephrological injuries that were suffered by Plaintiff that would
have been prevented if Plaintiff received treatment in a timely manner.
100. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York.
101. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
102. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
103. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Assault
104. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
105. Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting within the scope of their
employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously assaulted Plaintiff in that they had the real
or apparent ability to cause imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact and intentionally
did a violent and/or menacing act which threatened such contact to the Plaintiff, that such acts
caused apprehension of such contact in the Plaintiff.
106. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York.
107. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
108. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
109. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Battery
- 11 -
11 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
110. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein.
111. Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting within the scope of their employment,
intentionally, willfully and maliciously battered Plaintiff, when they, in a hostile and/or offensive
manner roughly handcuffed, grabbed, choked and threw Plaintiff into a vehicle and brutally
effecting an arrest of Plaintiff without his consent and with the intention of causing harmful and/or
offensive bodily contact to the Plaintiff and caused such battery.
112. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under
the laws of the State of New York.
113. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their
employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are
therefore responsible for their conduct.
114. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
115. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including
but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Individual Defendant Officer’s Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights
116. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
117. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule,
regulation, custom or usage.
118. The acts of Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C.
Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use
of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or
seizure.
119. The Defendant Officers, while in uniform, unlawfully seized, frisked, and searched the
Plaintiff, before detaining plaintiff and further causing his detention for approximately 9 hours
in total.
120. The Defendant officers used excessive force against Plaintif and caused him injury.
121. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured
physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured.
- 12 -
12 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Individual Defendant Officer’s Failure to Intervene in Violation
of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights
122. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
123. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule,
regulation, custom or usage.
124. Defendant Officers had a duty to protect Plaintiff from violations of his rights under 2021
N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person,
house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against
the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search
or seizure.
125. The Defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff, but were present when other officers
violated Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 right against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force
had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights were
being violated in their presence by other officers.
126. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein, thereby
failed in their duty to intervene to protect Plaintiff from violation of his rights.
127. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured
physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
City-Employer’s Liability for Defendant Officer’s Violation of
Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights
128. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
129. Defendant Officers are “covered individuals” as defined in 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48,
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 - 801 in that they are employees of the Police Department or persons
appointed by the Police Commissioner as a Special Patrolmen.
130. The City of New York, as the employer of the covered individual Defendant Officers, is liable
to the Plaintiff for the wrongdoing of the covered individual Defendant Officers.
131. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule,
regulation, custom or usage.
- 13 -
13 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
132. The acts of Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C.
Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use
of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or
seizure.
133. The Defendant Officers, while in uniform, unlawfully seized, frisked, and searched the
Plaintiff, before detaining plaintiff and further causing his detention for approximately 9 hours.
134. The Defendant officers used excessive force against Plaintif and caused him injury.
135. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured
physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
City-Employer’s Liability for Defendant Officer’s Failure to
Intervene in Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights
136. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth
at length herein.
137. Defendant Officers are “covered individuals” as defined in 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48,
N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 - 801 in that they are employees of the Police Department or persons
appointed by the Police Commissioner as a Special Patrolmen.
138. The City of New York, as the employer of the covered individual Defendant Officers, is liable
to the Plaintiff for the wrongdoing of the covered individual Defendant Officers.
139. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule,
regulation, custom or usage.
140. Defendant Officers had a duty to protect Plaintiff from violations of his rights under 2021
N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person,
house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against
the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search
or seizure.
141. The Defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff but were present when other officers
violated Plaintiff’s AC 8 – 802 rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive
force had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights
were being violated in their presence by other officers.
142. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein, thereby
failed in their duty to intervene to protect Plaintiff from violation of his rights.
- 14 -
14 of 17
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023
09/27/2022 02:53
04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13
1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023
09/27/2022
143. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured
physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution
144. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the above
paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
145. Such conduct breached the protections guaranteed to plaintiff by the New York State
Constitution, including but not limited to, Article 1, §§ 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and including the
following rights:
i. freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of her person and property;
ii. freedom from arrest without probable cause;
iii. freedom from false imprisonment, that being wrongfully detained without
good faith, reasonable suspicion, or legal justification, and of which
wrongful detention plaintiff was aware and did not consent;
iv. freedom from the lodging of false charges against him by police officers
and prosecutors, including on information and belief, by some or all of
the individual defendants; and
v. freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
146. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ deprivations of Paintiff’s rights, privileges,
and immunities guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, Plaintiff suffered physical,
economic and emotional i
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x INDEX NO.: WILLIAMS LORANCE, SUMMONS Plaintiff, Index No.: -against- The Basis of Venue is: Location of Incident THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYPD POLICE OFFICER ADAN SUAZORODAS, SHIELD NO. 10750, AND Plaintiff designates Kings NYPD POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES NUMBERS County as the place of trial. ONE THROUGH TEN, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X To the above named Defendants: You are hereby summoned to answer the Verified Complaint in this action, and to serve a copy of your Verified Answer to the Verified Complaint, or, if the Verified Complaint is not served with this Summons, to serve a notice of appearance on the Plaintiff's attorneys within twenty days after the service of this Summons, exclusive of the day of service, where service is made by delivery upon you personally within the state, or, within 30 days after completion of service where service is made in any other manner. In case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. DATED: New York, New York September 27, 2022 Yours, etc. Gabriella Orozco, Esq. Shulman-Hill, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 State Street Plaza 15th Floor New York, New York 10004 (518) 546-8784 TO: THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Corporation Counsel, 100 Church Street, NY, NY 10007 OFFICER ADAN SUAZORODAS, 70th PCT, 154 Lawrence Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11230 1 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x WILLIAMS LORANCE, INDEX NO.: Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NYPD POLICE OFFICER ADAN SUAZORODAS, SHIELD NO. 10750, AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NYPD POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES NUMBERS ONE THROUGH TEN, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X Plaintiff WILLIAMS LORANCE, by his attorneys, Shulman-Hill, PLLC, as and for his Verified Complaint herein, alleges upon information and belief as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights action to recover money damages arising out of defendants’ violation of Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, and of rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the common law and the laws of the State of New York. On September 24, 2021, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Plaintiff Williams Lorance, while lawfully in the vicinity of Albermale Road and Flatbush Avenue, County of Kings, New York, was subject to an unlawful arrest, detention, assault, battery and excessive use of force by defendant Police Officers. Plaintiff was deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802 and his constitutional, common law and statutory rights when the individual defendants unlawfully stopped, detained, assaulted, battered, subjected to excessive force, passed along false accusations to prosecuting attorneys and engaged in the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the common law and the laws of the State of New York. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Williams Lorance is a resident of the state of New York. 2. NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No. 10750 is and was at all times relevant herein an Officer with the New York City Police Department. -2- 2 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 3. NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No. 10750 is being sued in their individual and official capacity. 4. Currently and at all times relevant herein, NYPD Police Officer Adan Suazorodas, Shield No. 10750 was assigned to the 70th Police Precinct of the NYPD. 5. NYPD Police Officers John Does Numbers One Through Ten are and were at all times relevant herein officers, employees, and agents of the New York City Police Department. 6. NYPD Police Officers John Does Numbers One Through Ten are being sued in their individual and official capacities. 7. At all times relevant herein, the individual defendants were acting under color of state law in the course and scope of their duties and functions as agents, servants, employees and officers of the New York City Police Department, and otherwise performed and engaged in conduct incidental to the performance of their lawful functions in the course of their duties. They were acting for and on behalf of the New York City Police Department at all times relevant herein, with the power and authority vested in them as officers, agents and employees of the New York City Police Department and incidental to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees and agents of the New York City Police Department. 8. Defendant City of New York is 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. The defendant City of New York assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the employment of police officers as said risks attach to the public consumers of the services provided by the New York City Police Department. 9. Plaintiff in furtherance of his causes of action brought pursuant to New York State law filed a timely Notice of Claim against the City of New York in compliance with the Municipal Law Section 50 and in accordance with New York State law. 10. In accordance with New York State law and General Municipal Law Section 50, Plaintiff testified at a hearing held pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-H on February 28, 2022. 11. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since service of said Notice of Claim was filed and the City of New York has failed to pay or adjust the claims. 12. This action falls within one or more of the exceptions as set forth in CPLR Section 1602, involving intentional actions, as well as the defendant, and/or defendants, having acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others, as well as having performed intentional acts. 13. Plaintiff has sustained damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New York. -3- 3 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 STATEMENT OF FACTS 14. On September 24, 2021, at approximately 9:45 p.m., Plaintiff was present in the vicinity of Albermarle Road and Flatbush Avenue, County of Kings, New York, when the defendant Police Officers unlawfully arrested Plaintiff. 15. Plaintiff was driving when he pulled over on Flatbush Avenue to make a phone call. 16. The driver of an unmarked vehicle with tinted windows approached Plaintiff, made a u-turn, pulled up behind Plaintiff’s vehicle, and turned on the vehicle’s overhead lights. 17. Approximately two Defendant officers exited the unmarked vehicle and approached Plaintiff. 18. Plaintiff rolled down his window and asked “What’s the problem?” 19. Defendant Officers requested Plaintiff hand over his license and registration, and Plaintiff did so. 20. Defendant Officers then asked Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle. 21. Defendant Officers removed from Plaintiff’s front pocket a small knife that he had used earlier in the day to cut wires while installing new lights for his vehicle. 22. Defendant Officers handcuffed Plaintiff tightly, causing significant bruising and cuts to his arms and wrists. 23. Despite Plaintiff’s pleas for information, none of the Defendant Officers told him that he was being arrested, what he was being arrested for, or where he was being taken. 24. Defendant Officers placed Plaintiff inside a police vehicle and transported him to the 70th precinct where he was searched and placed into a cell. 25. Eventually, the Defendant Officers took Plaintiff into an interrogation room where they questioned him. 26. Plaintiff was placed back into the cell where he remained for approximately an hour before he was removed to be processed. 27. The Defendant officers fingerprinted and photographed Plaintiff. 28. The Defendant Officers informed Plaintiff that they needed to take his DNA in order to give him a Desk Appearance Ticket. 29. Defendant Officers further informed Plaintiff that if he refused they would have to charge him with obstruction because of a new law. -4- 4 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 30. Defendant Officer stated that if Plaintiff refused to give DNA, Plaintiff would have to be processed again for the obstruction charge before he was allowed to leave. 31. Plaintiff submitted to the DNA test and was placed back into the cell. 32. During his time in custody, Defendant Officers pushed Plaintiff into the cell and shoved his head against the cell wall. 33. Plaintiff informed Defendant Officers that they pushed on his abdomen, causing him to feel nauseous. 34. As a result, Plaintiff requested water or anything that would help with the nausea. 35. Defendant Officer told Plaintiff to get it himself when he is released. 36. Eventually, Plaintiff vomited in the cell and was left to sit next to the vomit until he was released. 37. While Plaintiff was in custody, the Defendant police officers provided the Kings County District Attorney’s Office with the false, misleading and/or incomplete information that Plaintiff committed a crime. 38. Specifically, the defendant police officers falsely stated to the Kings County District Attorney’s Office that Plaintiff was engaged in Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree and Damaged Glass. 39. Plaintiff was released with a Desk Appearance ticket after spending approximately 9 hours in custody. 40. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed on February 15, 2022 after three court appearances. 41. As a result of this incident, Plaintiff doesn’t feel comfortable driving around the city because whenever he sees a patrol car he becomes nervous and begins sweating profusely. Therefore, he was unable to return to his job where he is required to drive. 42. At no time relevant herein did Plaintiff commit a crime or violate the law in any way, nor did the police officers have an objective reason to accuse Plaintiff of committing a crime or violating the law in any way. 43. At no point did Defendant Officers recover any drugs, weapons, graffiti instruments, or other illegal contraband from Plaintiff or from a location that was in Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control. 44. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was unlawfully arrested and handcuffed by defendant officers without legal justification or probable cause, unlawfully fingerprinted, photographed and searched, and unlawfully detained. -5- 5 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 45. Some of the police officer defendants observed the violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the United States and New York State Law and did nothing to prevent their fellow officers from unjustifiably assaulting, battering, and using excessive force against Plaintiff. 46. The unlawful assault, battery, and use of excessive force by the individually named defendants caused Plaintiff to sustain physical, psychological and emotional trauma. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Stop, Question, and Search 47. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 48. The illegal approach, pursuit, stop and grab employed by defendants herein terminated Plaintiff’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. 49. The conduct of defendants in approaching, stopping, and grabbing Plaintiff was performed under color of law and without any reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutionally required grounds. 50. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 51. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 52. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Unlawful Seizure and Deprivation of Liberty 53. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 54. The individually named police officer defendants, while acting in concert and within the scope of their authority, caused Plaintiff to be seized, unlawfully searched, falsely arrested, and falsely imprisoned, and maliciously prosecuted without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause, in violation of Plaintiff’s right to be free of an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and to be free of a deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. -6- 6 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 55. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to physical, emotional and psychological injuries. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION False Imprisonment 56. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 57. The acts and conduct of the defendants constitute false arrest and false imprisonment under the laws of the State of New York. Defendants intended to confine Plaintiff and, in fact, confined Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement. In addition, Plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and the confinement was not otherwise privileged. 58. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York and the United States Constitution. 59. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 60. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 61. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to loss of liberty, emotional and psychological injuries. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth And Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Excessive Force 62. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 63. The use of excessive force by defendants by, amongst other things, roughly handcuffing Plaintiff, pushing Plaintiff into a cell, pushing Plaintiff’s head against the cell constituted objectively unreasonable physical seizures of Plaintiff in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and to be free of a deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 64. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of his employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. -7- 7 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 65. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 66. By the actions described herein, defendants, each acting individually and in concert with each other, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, conduct utterly intolerable in a civilized community, which negligently caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff. The acts and conduct of the defendants were the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff and violated Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights as guaranteed by the laws and Constitution of the State of New York. 67. The acts and conduct of the defendants were the direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiff and violated Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights as guaranteed Plaintiff by the laws and Constitution of the State of New York. 68. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 69. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 70. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 71. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision 72. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 73. The City of New York and its employees, servants and/or agents acting within the scope of their employment did negligently hire, retain, train and supervise defendants, individuals who were unfit for the performance of police duties on the aforementioned dates at the aforementioned locations. 74. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to physical, emotional and psychological injuries. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Intervene -8- 8 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 75. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 76. The defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff, but were present when other officers violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights were being violated in their presence by other officers. 77. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein. 78. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s suffered serious injury, his liberty was restricted for an extended period of time, he was put in fear of his safety, his injuries worsened, he did not receive necessary medical treatment, and he was humiliated and subject to other physical constraints. 79. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 80. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 81. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 82. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Fourth And Fourteenth Amendment Rights: Denial of Right to Fair Trial/Due Process 83. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 84. Defendants, individually and collectively, manufactured and/or withheld false evidence and forwarded this false evidence to prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. 85. Defendants filled out false and misleading police reports and forwarded them to prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. 86. Defendants signed false and misleading criminal court affidavits and forwarded them to prosecutors in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. 87. In withholding/creating false evidence against Plaintiff, and in providing/withholding information with respect thereto, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due -9- 9 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 process and fair trial under the New York State Constitution and under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to be free to deprivation of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 88. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff sustained, inter alia, loss of the right to due process and a fair trial, loss of liberty, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights. 89. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 90. The City, as the employer of the officer Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 91. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries including, but not limited to: economic, emotional and psychological injuries. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious Prosecution 92. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 93. The acts and conduct of the Defendants constitute malicious prosecution under the United States Constitution. 94. Defendants commenced and continued a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff. 95. There was actual malice and an absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding against Plaintiff and for each of the charges for which they were prosecuted. 96. The prosecution and criminal proceedings terminated in Plaintiff’s favor on the aforementioned dates. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs 97. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 98. Defendants despite being aware that Plaintiff was suffering the rejection of his kidney implant and required medication and additional treatment from medical professionals, delayed Plaintiff’s medical treatment and refused to administer and properly procure immediate and adequate medical attention. - 10 - 10 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 99. The delay in medical treatment to Plaintiff’s injuries resulted in a month-long hospitalization, increased severity in Plaintiff’s nephrological injuries that were suffered by Plaintiff that would have been prevented if Plaintiff received treatment in a timely manner. 100. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 101. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 102. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 103. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assault 104. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 105. Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously assaulted Plaintiff in that they had the real or apparent ability to cause imminent harmful and/or offensive bodily contact and intentionally did a violent and/or menacing act which threatened such contact to the Plaintiff, that such acts caused apprehension of such contact in the Plaintiff. 106. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 107. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 108. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 109. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Battery - 11 - 11 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 110. The Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth at length herein. 111. Defendants, their agents, servants and employees, acting within the scope of their employment, intentionally, willfully and maliciously battered Plaintiff, when they, in a hostile and/or offensive manner roughly handcuffed, grabbed, choked and threw Plaintiff into a vehicle and brutally effecting an arrest of Plaintiff without his consent and with the intention of causing harmful and/or offensive bodily contact to the Plaintiff and caused such battery. 112. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, Defendants deprived Plaintiff of his rights under the laws of the State of New York. 113. Defendants were at all times agents, servants, and employees acting within the scope of their employment by the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, which are therefore responsible for their conduct. 114. The City, as the employer of the officer defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 115. As a result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants, Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to emotional and psychological injuries. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Individual Defendant Officer’s Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights 116. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 117. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, custom or usage. 118. The acts of Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or seizure. 119. The Defendant Officers, while in uniform, unlawfully seized, frisked, and searched the Plaintiff, before detaining plaintiff and further causing his detention for approximately 9 hours in total. 120. The Defendant officers used excessive force against Plaintif and caused him injury. 121. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured. - 12 - 12 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Individual Defendant Officer’s Failure to Intervene in Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights 122. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 123. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, custom or usage. 124. Defendant Officers had a duty to protect Plaintiff from violations of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or seizure. 125. The Defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff, but were present when other officers violated Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 right against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights were being violated in their presence by other officers. 126. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein, thereby failed in their duty to intervene to protect Plaintiff from violation of his rights. 127. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION City-Employer’s Liability for Defendant Officer’s Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights 128. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 129. Defendant Officers are “covered individuals” as defined in 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 - 801 in that they are employees of the Police Department or persons appointed by the Police Commissioner as a Special Patrolmen. 130. The City of New York, as the employer of the covered individual Defendant Officers, is liable to the Plaintiff for the wrongdoing of the covered individual Defendant Officers. 131. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, custom or usage. - 13 - 13 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 132. The acts of Defendant Officers caused Plaintiff to be deprived of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or seizure. 133. The Defendant Officers, while in uniform, unlawfully seized, frisked, and searched the Plaintiff, before detaining plaintiff and further causing his detention for approximately 9 hours. 134. The Defendant officers used excessive force against Plaintif and caused him injury. 135. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION City-Employer’s Liability for Defendant Officer’s Failure to Intervene in Violation of Plaintiff’s AC 8-802 Rights 136. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same were fully set forth at length herein. 137. Defendant Officers are “covered individuals” as defined in 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 - 801 in that they are employees of the Police Department or persons appointed by the Police Commissioner as a Special Patrolmen. 138. The City of New York, as the employer of the covered individual Defendant Officers, is liable to the Plaintiff for the wrongdoing of the covered individual Defendant Officers. 139. The acts of Defendant Officers constituted conduct under color of any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, custom or usage. 140. Defendant Officers had a duty to protect Plaintiff from violations of his rights under 2021 N.Y.C. Local Law No. 48, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8 – 802, to wit: to be secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be secure against the use of excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or seizure. 141. The Defendants that did not physically touch Plaintiff but were present when other officers violated Plaintiff’s AC 8 – 802 rights against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force had an affirmative duty to intervene on behalf of Plaintiff, whose constitutional rights were being violated in their presence by other officers. 142. Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the unlawful conduct described herein, thereby failed in their duty to intervene to protect Plaintiff from violation of his rights. - 14 - 14 of 17 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 02:53 04:32 PM INDEX NO. 528121/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2023 09/27/2022 143. By reason of the acts and omissions by Defendants described above, Plaintiff has endured physical and emotional injuries and was otherwise damaged and injured. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution 144. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the above paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 145. Such conduct breached the protections guaranteed to plaintiff by the New York State Constitution, including but not limited to, Article 1, §§ 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12, and including the following rights: i. freedom from unreasonable search and seizure of her person and property; ii. freedom from arrest without probable cause; iii. freedom from false imprisonment, that being wrongfully detained without good faith, reasonable suspicion, or legal justification, and of which wrongful detention plaintiff was aware and did not consent; iv. freedom from the lodging of false charges against him by police officers and prosecutors, including on information and belief, by some or all of the individual defendants; and v. freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. 146. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ deprivations of Paintiff’s rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, Plaintiff suffered physical, economic and emotional i