Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS
ANASTASIA MASON,
Index No.:
Plaintiff, Purchased:
-against- Plaintiff selects Kings County as the
place of trial.
CITY OF NEW YORK, ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS
SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, The basis of venue is where the injury
occurred.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy
of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on the Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons,
exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is
not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and 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: Bayside, New York
April 19, 2024
Yours, etc.,
SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP
/s/ Sameer Nath
By: Sameer Nath, Esq.
SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
42-40 Bell Blvd - Ste 405
Bayside, NY 11361
T: (718) 281-0400
F: (718) 631-2700
snath@simdepaola.com
1 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
TO: CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
ORLANDO PEREZ (Shield #: 14814)
Via 75th NYPD Precinct
1000 Sutter Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11208-3553
NICHOLAS SOMMELLA (Shield #: 22101)
Via 75th NYPD Precinct
1000 Sutter Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11208-3553
2 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANASTASIA MASON, Index No.:
Purchased:
Plaintiff,
-against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT
CITY OF NEW YORK, ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS
SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, ANASTASIA MASON, by and through the undersigned attorneys, SIM &
DEPAOLA, LLP, for her complaint against the Defendants, CITY OF NEW YORK,
ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, alleges
and states as follows:
1. This is a civil rights action, in which Plaintiff seeks relief vis-à-vis 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,
1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988, the laws of the City and State of New York, including but not
limited to New York City Human Rights Law under NYC Admin Code §§ 8-801 – 8-806, in
addition to the self-executing clauses or implied private causes of action within the constitution
of State of New York, for the violations of her civil rights, as enumerated by the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the
New York State Constitution, in addition to the Laws of the City and State of New York.
2. The following claims arose on or about August 9, 2023, when Defendants, acting under
color of state law, unlawfully stopped, questioned, searched, arrested, and detained Plaintiff in
the vicinity of the intersection of Stanley and Pennsylvania Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
Plaintiff was subsequently removed to an NYPD Precinct. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of
3 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
her liberty and suffered various physical, emotional, and psychological injuries. Plaintiff was
wrongfully detained over the course of approximately one (1) day until her release from physical
custody. Plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted and denied due process of law until all criminal
charges against Plaintiff were unconditionally and summarily dismissed on February 13, 2024,
which constituted a termination in favor of Plaintiff.
3. At all times here mentioned, Defendants were acting under color of state law, to wit,
under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the City and
State of New York.
4. Under New York City Human Rights Law under NYC Admin Code §§ 8-801 – 8-806,
the Plaintiff is not required to file his Notice of Claim or submit to an oral examination pursuant
to section 50-H of the New York General Municipal Law.
5. This action is being commenced within three (3) years after the occurrences upon which
they are based which is the Statute of Limitations for Plaintiff’s Federal and State Law Claims
availing of the COVID-19 tolling provisions enacted by former-Governor Andrew Cuomo
pursuant to Executive Order which operated to toll all Statutes of Limitations for a period of two
hundred twenty-eight (228) days.
6. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages (compensatory and punitive) against Defendants, an
award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this Court may
deem just and proper.
PARTIES
7. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff, Ms. ANASTASIA MASON (“Plaintiff”), is an
adult, African-American or Black female, who presently resides in Staten Island, New York.
4 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
8. Defendant, City of New York (“City”), is a municipal corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.
9. At all relevant times herein, the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) was a
wholly owned subsidiary which was further wholly operated, managed, maintained, and
controlled by Defendant City.
10. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City, acting through its New York City Police
Department, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct
of all NYPD matters and was responsible for the appointment, screening, hiring, training,
supervision, discipline, retention and conduct of all NYPD personnel, including police officers,
detectives, investigators, sergeants, lieutenants and other supervisory officers or officials, as well
as the individually named NYPD Defendants herein.
11. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, ORLANDO PEREZ (“PEREZ”), was a police
officer, supervisor, or policymaker employed by the NYPD under Shield No. 14814 and as such,
was acting in the capacity of an agent, servant and employee of Defendant City. Upon
information and belief, Defendant PEREZ is currently assigned to the 75th NYPD Precinct.
Defendant PEREZ is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
12. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA (“SOMMELLA”),
was a police officer, supervisor, or policymaker employed by the NYPD under Shield No. 22101
and as such, was acting in the capacity of an agent, servant and employee of Defendant City.
Upon information and belief, Defendant SOMMELLA is currently assigned to the 75th NYPD
Precinct. Defendant SOMMELLA is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
5 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
13. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, City, was responsible for enforcing the rules and
regulations of the NYPD, and for ensuring that the NYPD personnel obey the laws and
constitutions of the United States and the State of New York.
14. At all relevant times herein, Defendants JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 were police officers,
detectives, sergeants, supervisors, policymakers, or officials employed by the NYPD or City of
New York. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the true names or tax registry numbers of
Defendants, JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, as such knowledge is within the exclusive possession of
Defendants. The names JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 are fictitious and meant as placeholders for
the NYPD Police Officers who (1) unlawfully pulled over Plaintiff, (2) falsely arrested and
illegally searched, (3) violently and aggressively punched, kicked, and slammed Plaintiff against
a car, (4) maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff, and (5) who aided, abetted, assisted and acted in
concert with the other Defendants to do the same.
15. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or
JANE DOE 1-10 were acting as agents, servants, and employees of the City of New York, or the
NYPD. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 are being
sued in their individual and official capacities.
16. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were acting under the color of state law, to wit,
under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the City
or State of New York.
FACTUAL CHARGES
17. On or about August 9, 2023, at approximately 04:00 AM, in the vicinity of the
intersection of Stanley and Pennsylvania Avenue, County of Kings, State of New York, Plaintiff
6 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
was illegally stopped, searched, arrested, maliciously prosecuted by Defendants, including
PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10.
18. On the said date and time, Plaintiff was lawfully driving in obeyance of all laws, statutes,
and ordinances.
19. On the said date and time, Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or
JANE DOE 1-10 unlawfully pulled Plaintiff over without any probable cause, reasonable
suspicion, or justification.
20. Plaintiff complied with the said Defendants’ directives without hesitation or resistance,
despite their lack of justification from the outset.
21. Plaintiff voluntarily exited the vehicle when directed to do so when Defendants,
including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 aggressively approached
Plaintiff and unlawfully placed Plaintiff under arrest despite the fact that said Defendants had no
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so as Plaintiff was not engaged in illegal or criminal
behavior and exhibited no indicia of such.
22. Then Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN OR JANE DOE 1-10
violently, excessively, and illegally punched and kicked Plaintiff even though Plaintiff was not
acting in a violent, tumultuous, or threatening manner and further presented no physical threat or
menace to Defendants or anyone else.
23. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1–10 violently
and brutally slammed Plaintiff against a car, and then aggressively contorted Plaintiff’s arms and
wrists behind her back to which they applied metal handcuffs in an excessively tight fashion.
7 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
24. Plaintiff complained numerous times to Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA,
and JOHN or JANE DOE 1 – 10 that the excessively tight handcuffs were causing her pain,
injury, bruising and swelling, however, Plaintiff’s pleas were declined or outright ignored.
25. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 then
conducted an illegal and humiliating search of Plaintiff’s person by searching through her
pockets and patting her down all over in the plain, open view of other people.
26. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 savagely
grabbed Plaintiff while she was rear-handcuffed and violently shoved into a police vehicle and
was transported against her will to a local NYPD Precinct for arrest processing.
27. Thereafter, Plaintiff was fingerprinted, photographed, searched, retina-scanned, and
placed in a disgusting cell.
28. As a result of the illegal and excessive force used by the Defendants, including PEREZ,
SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, Plaintiff sustained significant injuries and was
transported to Brookdale Hospital Medical Center.
29. Then Plaintiff was brought back to the precinct before being transported to Kings County
Central Booking where she was again searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a
disgusting cell.
30. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, falsely
arrested, illegally detained, and maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff despite the fact that said
Defendants had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so as Plaintiff was not engaged
in illegal or criminal behavior and exhibited no indicia of such.
31. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, falsely
arrested and caused a criminal prosecution to be initiated against Plaintiff, because of their
8 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
desires to use Plaintiff’s arrest and criminal prosecution to incur additional overtime
compensation, benefits and career favor from the superior officers, to avoid adverse
consequences associated with failing to meet NYPD departmental arrest quotas, and also to
conceal their egregious violations of proper police procedures and gross misconduct, including
their fabrications of non-existent observations, evidence and information.
32. Plaintiff, therefore, asserts that due to the clear absence of any viable probable cause to
warrant her criminal prosecution, at any point, she was denied her rights to fair trial and due
process, and that Plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted up until the criminal charges were
dismissed and sealed pursuant to New York Criminal Law and Procedure which constituted a
termination of the criminal proceedings in favor of the accused.
33. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, arrested,
deployed excessive force and initiated a malicious prosecution against Plaintiff in retaliation for
Plaintiff’s exertion of her constitutional right to freely express her opinion and inquiries, namely
Plaintiff’s displeasure with the manner in which Defendants addressed her, illegally searched her
in open view of other people, and her request for an explanation as to why Defendants acted so
discourteously toward Plaintiff.
34. As a result, Plaintiff developed a severe fear of police officers, which prevented her from
venturing from her house for a period of time, and has effectively permanently chilled her desire
and ability to communicate with police officers.
35. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, engaged
in a conspiracy to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff by personally conferring with
each other, regarding the fabrication of the aforementioned non-existent evidence and
9 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
observations, as well the manner and means by which said fabrications would be forwarded to
the District Attorney’s Office.
36. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or
JANE DOE 1-10, who violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, are part of a larger pattern and practice of
similar misconduct, which is so widespread, pervasive and consistent throughout the NYPD and
the City of New York that the commission such constitutionally violative behavior has become
tantamount to an official policy or custom within the NYPD and City of New York or, at the
very least, conclusive evidence that the City and the NYPD have either tacitly approved of such
egregious wrongdoings or that they have become deliberately indifferent to the civil rights of
those who may come into contact with their police officers.
37. The individually named Defendants herein, as well as other officers serving in the
employ of the NYPD and City of New York, have blatantly, shamelessly, consistently and
repeatedly engaged in conduct violative of the civil rights guaranteed and protected by
Constitution of the United States, in addition to the laws and Constitution of the State of New
York, all without incurring any ramifications for such misconduct and, ostensibly, with the full
and complete blessing of the NYPD, the City of New York and their respective policymakers
and supervisors.
38. The New York Times, as well as numerous other reputable journalistic enterprises, have
reported on the widespread corruption within the NYPD and City of New York, particularly the
incredibly disconcerting proclivity of many NYPD officers to lie about subject matters that are
materially relevant to criminal prosecutions, including the complete fabrication of arrest
evidence and witnesses. Also detailed, is the NYPD’s obstinate refusal to effectuate corrective or
preventive measures to combat the inevitable recurrence of such misdeeds, and perhaps most
10 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
troubling, the NYPD’s alarming tendency to, instead, reward and promote these officers,
including those who were inculpated via incontrovertible evidence, such as video evidence.
39. The constitutionally repugnant behavior that persists within the ranks of the NYPD
results from the NYPD’s own policies, rules and procedures, namely the NYPD’s incredibly
flawed and illegal use of arrest quotas. Despite its illegality, such policies remain systemin
throughout the NYPD and its individual commands. The NYPD, however, was not content in
compelling its officers to effect as many arrests as possible, regardless of the presence of any
legal right to do, it promulgated various subsets of quotas, which are predicated on race, color or
ethnicity. Additionally, the NYPD, its supervisors or policymakers would assign varying point
values to arrests, which were, again, impermissibly based upon the arrestee’s race, color or
ethnicity. Unsurprisingly, officers would be better rewarded for minority arrests or summonses.
This egregious conduct has reported by numerous respected media outlets and publications and
has even formed the basis for federal lawsuits against the City and the NYPD, which were
commenced by its own employee officers.
40. On June 17, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article, by Graham Rayman,
entitled “Brooklyn Cop Claims he was Punished for not Meeting Arrest Quotas, Refusing to
Take Responsibility for Controversial Arrest in which he Wasn’t Involved,” describing
allegations from an NYPD Police Officer, Terrence Dickerson, that he was retaliated against by
the NYPD for refusing to adhere to mandatory racially based arrest quotas and for his refusal to
accept responsibility for a controversial and publicized arrest via the excessive force, despite the
fact that he was not even at the scene.
41. Another article with a title that speaks for itself, also published by the New York Daily
News, on December 5, 2019, and written by Graham Rayman, is entitled “Ex-Cop Details NYPD
11 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
‘Collar Quotas’—Arrest Black and Hispanic Men, ‘No Cuffs on Soft Targets’ of Jews, Asians,
Whites: Court Docs.”
42. The New York Times, on December 6, 2019, published an article by Joseph Goldstein
and Ashley Southall, entitled “I Got Tired of Hunting Black and Hispanic People,” which
revealed a disturbing account from a different NYPD Police Officer, Anthony Diaz, describing a
police force that measures the quality of police work by the quantity of minority arrests.
43. On March 18, 2018, The New York Times published an explosive article, entitled
“Promotions, Not Punishments for Officers Accused of Lying,” written by Joseph Goldstein. Mr.
Goldstein shines a light on the multitude of flaws within the CCRB and the NYPD, highlighting
the fact that the substantiation of a claim against an officer will invariably rely on the presence of
incontrovertible proof against the officer. Due to the rarity availability of this type of evidence,
an alarmingly small percentage of officer misconduct claims are substantiated. The CCRB is
further handicapped by a terribly designed system that requires evidence of a virtually
indisputable nature to substantiate any claim against an officer. The article also details the
NYPD’s persistent reluctance to investigate or discipline officers who lie and even posits that
this reluctance is a significant cause of the lying pandemic within the NYPD. The article
references various officers and detectives who were the subject of credible accusations relating
to the officers’ intentionally false statements, with some allegations coming from federal and
state judges.
44. On September 12, 2019, The New York Times published another article by Joseph
Goldstein, entitled “Officers Said They Smelled Pot. The Judge Called Them Liars.”
Unsurprisingly, this article dealt with the unusually high frequency of officers using the odor of
marijuana to excuse a search that conspicuously does not result in the recovery of any marijuana.
12 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
It should not require an article in The New York Times to call attention to such patently
disingenuous tactics, but has become necessary for a variety of reasons, including the NYPD’s
failure to correct such behavior, the willingness of prosecutors and judges to credit the lying
officers and the increasing rate of occurrence.
45. On April 24, 2019, The New York Times published an article, entitled “Detective’s Lies
Sent Three People to Prison, Prosecutors Charge,” by Sean Piccolo, detailing the lies of NYPD
Second Grade Detective Joseph Franco and how those lies resulted in the imprisonment of at
least three innocent people. The article described how Det. Franco lied about observing drug
transactions on at least three separate occasions, lies that were only uncovered through
contradictory video evidence. Det. Franco’s lies resulted in the innocent individuals each being
sentenced to prison terms in excess of one-year.
46. Other articles include: (i) “Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem.,” by Joseph
Goldstein, The New York Times, March 18, 2018; (ii) “New York Detective Charged with Faking
Lineup Results,” by Joseph Goldstein, The New York Times, February 17, 2018; (iii) “He
Excelled as a Detective, Until Prosecutors Stopped Believing Him,” by Joseph Goldstein, The
New York Times, October 17, 2017; (iv) “Review Board Notes Rise in New York Police
Officers’ False Statement,” by J. David Goodman, The New York Times, May 14, 2015; (v) “In
Brooklyn Gun Cases, Suspicion Turns to the Police,” by Stephanie Clifford, The New York
Times, December 11, 2014; (vi) “Detective is Found Guilty of Planting Drugs,” by Tim Stelloh,
The New York Times, November 1, 2011; and (vii) “The Drugs? They Came from the Police,” by
Jim Dwyer, The New York Times, October 13, 2011.
47. The NYPD has a longstanding and ignominious record of failing to discipline its officers,
or even entertaining allegations of wrongdoing against them. On June 26, 2019, The New York
13 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Times published an article, entitled “2,495 Reports of Police Bias. Not One Was Deemed Valid
by the N.Y.P.D.” This article reported that within the last five (5) years, almost 2,500 separate
individuals have filed formal complaints with the NYPD alleging that an officer acted with bias
toward them, with not a single one being substantiated by the NYPD. Such a finding is plainly
incredible and obviously the result of deliberately poor or nonexistent investigatory protocols.
The report further impugned the NYPD’s commitment to combat the prejudices and the biases
exhibited by many of its officers.
48. Upon information and belief, the NYPD, the City of New York, and their respective
policymakers, officials or supervisors have imposed, tacitly approved or acquiesced to policies,
customs, or patterns and practices within the NYPD that resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest without
probable cause.
49. Upon information and belief, the NYPD, the City of New York, and their respective
policymakers or supervisors have failed to provide adequate training regarding the identification
of probable cause, reasonable suspicion or the appropriate amount of force to be used.
50. Defendants’ actions, pursuant to Plaintiff’s underlying arrest, which occurred without
even the semblance of probable cause, were so blatantly violative of Plaintiff’s civil rights that
the tacit approval of identical or similar acts by the policymakers or supervisors of the NYPD
and the City of New York, as well as their deliberate indifference towards the rights of any
individuals who may come into contact with Defendants, should be inferred, because such
flagrant deprivations of constitutionally protected rights could not and would not occur without
the tacit approval or deliberate indifference regarding the commission of such violations by the
policymakers or supervisors of the NYPD and City of New York.
14 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
51. Upon information and belief, further details and facts, relating to the unlawful policies,
customs or patterns and practices of the NYPD, City of New York and their respective
policymakers, supervisors, police officers or employees, will become known after the completion
of discovery, as such information is presently within the exclusive possession of Defendants, the
NYPD and City of New York.
52. Upon information and belief, the personnel files, records and disciplinary histories of the
officer Defendants will reveal a history of Constitutional violations indicative of Defendant
City’s knowledge that the individual officer Defendants were unfit for employment as NYPD
officers, or for employment in general, and that the probability of the individually named
Defendants committing similar violations in the future was extremely high.
53. Upon information and belief, said personnel files, records and disciplinary histories will
conclusively show that the City and the NYPD were fully aware of Defendants’ past
constitutional violations, the unacceptably high probability for the recurrence of similar
transgressions, the unreasonably dangerous situations that were likely to result from their hiring
or retention, as well as their unsuitability for employment as law enforcement officers, or for
employment in general, and that the NYPD and City of New York failed to engage in any
preventive or corrective action intended to diminish the likelihood of recurrence for such
violations, which is tantamount to the City’s tacit approval of such misconduct or the City’s
deliberate indifference towards the civil rights of those who may interact with its employees,
including Defendants, PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10.
54. Upon information and belief, the individually named Defendants have combined to be
named as Defendants in numerous lawsuits that have accused them of committing violations
15 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
similar or identical to those alleged herein, all of which have resulted no disciplinary or
corrective action of any kind.
55. Upon information and belief, the NYPD and City of New York and have failed, or
outright refused, to correct the individually named Defendants’ predilections to engage in
unconstitutional behavior or attempt to prevent the recurrence of such misconduct.
56. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or
JANE DOE 1-10, directly or proximately resulted in the deprivation or violation of Plaintiff’s
civil rights, as guaranteed and protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution, as well as the laws and Constitution of the State of New York.
57. As a direct or proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff was caused to suffer the loss of her
liberty, irreparable reputational harm, loss of earnings and potential earnings, physical injury, as
well as severe and permanent emotional distress, including fear, embarrassment, humiliation,
traumatization, frustration, extreme inconvenience, and anxiety.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Free Speech Retaliation Claim Under
New York State Law
58. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
59. Plaintiff engaged in speech and activities that were protected by Article I, Section 8, of
the New York State Constitution.
60. Defendants committed impermissible or unlawful actions against Plaintiff that were
motivated or substantially caused by Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or activities.
61. Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff resulted in the deprivation of his/her
liberty and the initiation of criminal charges against him/her.
62. Defendants’ retaliatory actions adversely affected Plaintiff’s protected speech or
activities by physically or procedurally preventing him/her from further pursuing said protected
16 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
speech or activities or by chilling his/her desire to further participate or engage in such protected
speech or activities.
63. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s right to engage in protected speech and activities, guaranteed and
protected by Article I, Section 8, of the New York State Constitution, was violated by
Defendants.
64. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their
wrongdoings, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
65. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
First Amendment Retaliation Claim Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants
66. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
67. Plaintiff engaged in speech and activities that were protected by the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
68. Defendants committed impermissible or unlawful actions against Plaintiff that were
motivated or substantially caused by Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or activities.
69. Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff resulted in the deprivation of his liberty
and the initiation of criminal charges against him.
70. Defendants’ retaliatory actions adversely affected Plaintiff’s protected speech or
activities by physically or procedurally preventing him from further pursuing said protected
speech or activities, or by chilling his desire to further participate or engage in such protected
speech or activities.
17 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
71. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s right to engage in protected speech and activities, as guaranteed
and protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, was violated by
Defendants.
72. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Unlawful Search and Seizure Under
New York State Law
73. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
74. Defendants subjected Plaintiff and his property to unreasonable searches and seizures
without a valid warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause do so.
75. Plaintiff was conscious and fully aware of the unreasonable searches and seizures to his
person and property.
76. Plaintiff did not consent to the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person or
property.
77. The unreasonable searches and seizures to Plaintiff’s person and property were not
otherwise privileged.
78. Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures, pursuant to Article I, Section 12, of the New York State Constitution and Article II,
Section 8, of the New York Civil Rights Law.
79. Defendant City of New York, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible
for their wrongdoings under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
80. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
Unlawful Search and Seizure Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants
81. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
82. Defendants subjected Plaintiff and his property to unreasonable searches and seizures
without a valid warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause do so.
83. Plaintiff was conscious and fully aware of the unreasonable searches and seizures to his
person and property.
84. Plaintiff did not consent to the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person or
property.
85. The unreasonable searches and seizures to Plaintiff’s person and property were not
otherwise privileged.
86. Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
87. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Arrest and False Imprisonment Under
New York State Law
88. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
89. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to false arrest, false imprisonment, and deprivation of
liberty without a valid warrant or probable cause.
90. Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement.
91. Plaintiff did not consent to his confinement.
92. Plaintiff’s arrest and false imprisonment was not otherwise privileged.
19 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
93. Defendant City of New York, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible
for their wrongdoings under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
94. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Arrest and False Imprisonment Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants
95. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
96. The Defendants violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
by wrongfully and illegally arresting, detaining and imprisoning Plaintiff.
97. The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest, detention, and
imprisonment of Plaintiff was carried out without a valid warrant, without Plaintiff’s consent,
and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
98. At all relevant times, Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending, arresting, and
imprisoning Plaintiff.
99. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Assault and Battery Under
New York State Law
100. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
101. At all relevant times, Defendants caused Plaintiff to fear for his physical well-being and
safety and placed him in apprehension of immediate harmful and/or offensive touching.
102. Defendants engaged in and subjected Plaintiff to immediate harmful or offensive
touching and battered him without his consent or justification.
20 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
103. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
damages.
104. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their
wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
105. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Excessive Force Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants
106. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
107. The Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,
because they used unreasonable force without Plaintiff’s consent.
108. Defendants engaged in and subjected Plaintiff to immediate harmful or offensive
touching and battered him without his consent.
109. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Malicious Prosecution Under
New York State Law
110. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
111. Defendants initiated the prosecution against Plaintiff.
112. Defendants lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiff was guilty or that the prosecution
could succeed.
113. Defendants acted with malice, which, in the absence of probable cause, may be inferred.
114. The prosecution was terminated in Plaintiff’s favor, when all criminal charges were
unconditionally dismissed and sealed.
21 of 37
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024
115. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
significant damages.
116. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their
wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
117. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages
hereinbefore alleged.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Malicious Prosecution Under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -------------------------------------------------------------------------X SUMMONS ANASTASIA MASON, Index No.: Plaintiff, Purchased: -against- Plaintiff selects Kings County as the place of trial. CITY OF NEW YORK, ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, The basis of venue is where the injury occurred. Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------X TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff’s Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and 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: Bayside, New York April 19, 2024 Yours, etc., SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP /s/ Sameer Nath By: Sameer Nath, Esq. SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 42-40 Bell Blvd - Ste 405 Bayside, NY 11361 T: (718) 281-0400 F: (718) 631-2700 snath@simdepaola.com 1 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 TO: CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 ORLANDO PEREZ (Shield #: 14814) Via 75th NYPD Precinct 1000 Sutter Ave Brooklyn, NY 11208-3553 NICHOLAS SOMMELLA (Shield #: 22101) Via 75th NYPD Precinct 1000 Sutter Ave Brooklyn, NY 11208-3553 2 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ------------------------------------------------------------------------X ANASTASIA MASON, Index No.: Purchased: Plaintiff, -against- VERIFIED COMPLAINT CITY OF NEW YORK, ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, ANASTASIA MASON, by and through the undersigned attorneys, SIM & DEPAOLA, LLP, for her complaint against the Defendants, CITY OF NEW YORK, ORLANDO PEREZ, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, alleges and states as follows: 1. This is a civil rights action, in which Plaintiff seeks relief vis-à-vis 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988, the laws of the City and State of New York, including but not limited to New York City Human Rights Law under NYC Admin Code §§ 8-801 – 8-806, in addition to the self-executing clauses or implied private causes of action within the constitution of State of New York, for the violations of her civil rights, as enumerated by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the New York State Constitution, in addition to the Laws of the City and State of New York. 2. The following claims arose on or about August 9, 2023, when Defendants, acting under color of state law, unlawfully stopped, questioned, searched, arrested, and detained Plaintiff in the vicinity of the intersection of Stanley and Pennsylvania Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff was subsequently removed to an NYPD Precinct. As a result, Plaintiff was deprived of 3 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 her liberty and suffered various physical, emotional, and psychological injuries. Plaintiff was wrongfully detained over the course of approximately one (1) day until her release from physical custody. Plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted and denied due process of law until all criminal charges against Plaintiff were unconditionally and summarily dismissed on February 13, 2024, which constituted a termination in favor of Plaintiff. 3. At all times here mentioned, Defendants were acting under color of state law, to wit, under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the City and State of New York. 4. Under New York City Human Rights Law under NYC Admin Code §§ 8-801 – 8-806, the Plaintiff is not required to file his Notice of Claim or submit to an oral examination pursuant to section 50-H of the New York General Municipal Law. 5. This action is being commenced within three (3) years after the occurrences upon which they are based which is the Statute of Limitations for Plaintiff’s Federal and State Law Claims availing of the COVID-19 tolling provisions enacted by former-Governor Andrew Cuomo pursuant to Executive Order which operated to toll all Statutes of Limitations for a period of two hundred twenty-eight (228) days. 6. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages (compensatory and punitive) against Defendants, an award of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. PARTIES 7. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff, Ms. ANASTASIA MASON (“Plaintiff”), is an adult, African-American or Black female, who presently resides in Staten Island, New York. 4 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 8. Defendant, City of New York (“City”), is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. 9. At all relevant times herein, the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) was a wholly owned subsidiary which was further wholly operated, managed, maintained, and controlled by Defendant City. 10. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City, acting through its New York City Police Department, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all NYPD matters and was responsible for the appointment, screening, hiring, training, supervision, discipline, retention and conduct of all NYPD personnel, including police officers, detectives, investigators, sergeants, lieutenants and other supervisory officers or officials, as well as the individually named NYPD Defendants herein. 11. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, ORLANDO PEREZ (“PEREZ”), was a police officer, supervisor, or policymaker employed by the NYPD under Shield No. 14814 and as such, was acting in the capacity of an agent, servant and employee of Defendant City. Upon information and belief, Defendant PEREZ is currently assigned to the 75th NYPD Precinct. Defendant PEREZ is being sued in his individual and official capacities. 12. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, NICHOLAS SOMMELLA (“SOMMELLA”), was a police officer, supervisor, or policymaker employed by the NYPD under Shield No. 22101 and as such, was acting in the capacity of an agent, servant and employee of Defendant City. Upon information and belief, Defendant SOMMELLA is currently assigned to the 75th NYPD Precinct. Defendant SOMMELLA is being sued in his individual and official capacities. 5 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 13. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, City, was responsible for enforcing the rules and regulations of the NYPD, and for ensuring that the NYPD personnel obey the laws and constitutions of the United States and the State of New York. 14. At all relevant times herein, Defendants JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 were police officers, detectives, sergeants, supervisors, policymakers, or officials employed by the NYPD or City of New York. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the true names or tax registry numbers of Defendants, JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, as such knowledge is within the exclusive possession of Defendants. The names JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 are fictitious and meant as placeholders for the NYPD Police Officers who (1) unlawfully pulled over Plaintiff, (2) falsely arrested and illegally searched, (3) violently and aggressively punched, kicked, and slammed Plaintiff against a car, (4) maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff, and (5) who aided, abetted, assisted and acted in concert with the other Defendants to do the same. 15. At all relevant times herein, Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 were acting as agents, servants, and employees of the City of New York, or the NYPD. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 are being sued in their individual and official capacities. 16. At all relevant times herein, Defendants were acting under the color of state law, to wit, under the color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, and usages of the City or State of New York. FACTUAL CHARGES 17. On or about August 9, 2023, at approximately 04:00 AM, in the vicinity of the intersection of Stanley and Pennsylvania Avenue, County of Kings, State of New York, Plaintiff 6 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 was illegally stopped, searched, arrested, maliciously prosecuted by Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10. 18. On the said date and time, Plaintiff was lawfully driving in obeyance of all laws, statutes, and ordinances. 19. On the said date and time, Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 unlawfully pulled Plaintiff over without any probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or justification. 20. Plaintiff complied with the said Defendants’ directives without hesitation or resistance, despite their lack of justification from the outset. 21. Plaintiff voluntarily exited the vehicle when directed to do so when Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 aggressively approached Plaintiff and unlawfully placed Plaintiff under arrest despite the fact that said Defendants had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so as Plaintiff was not engaged in illegal or criminal behavior and exhibited no indicia of such. 22. Then Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN OR JANE DOE 1-10 violently, excessively, and illegally punched and kicked Plaintiff even though Plaintiff was not acting in a violent, tumultuous, or threatening manner and further presented no physical threat or menace to Defendants or anyone else. 23. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1–10 violently and brutally slammed Plaintiff against a car, and then aggressively contorted Plaintiff’s arms and wrists behind her back to which they applied metal handcuffs in an excessively tight fashion. 7 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 24. Plaintiff complained numerous times to Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1 – 10 that the excessively tight handcuffs were causing her pain, injury, bruising and swelling, however, Plaintiff’s pleas were declined or outright ignored. 25. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 then conducted an illegal and humiliating search of Plaintiff’s person by searching through her pockets and patting her down all over in the plain, open view of other people. 26. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10 savagely grabbed Plaintiff while she was rear-handcuffed and violently shoved into a police vehicle and was transported against her will to a local NYPD Precinct for arrest processing. 27. Thereafter, Plaintiff was fingerprinted, photographed, searched, retina-scanned, and placed in a disgusting cell. 28. As a result of the illegal and excessive force used by the Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, Plaintiff sustained significant injuries and was transported to Brookdale Hospital Medical Center. 29. Then Plaintiff was brought back to the precinct before being transported to Kings County Central Booking where she was again searched, fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in a disgusting cell. 30. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, falsely arrested, illegally detained, and maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff despite the fact that said Defendants had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do so as Plaintiff was not engaged in illegal or criminal behavior and exhibited no indicia of such. 31. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, falsely arrested and caused a criminal prosecution to be initiated against Plaintiff, because of their 8 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 desires to use Plaintiff’s arrest and criminal prosecution to incur additional overtime compensation, benefits and career favor from the superior officers, to avoid adverse consequences associated with failing to meet NYPD departmental arrest quotas, and also to conceal their egregious violations of proper police procedures and gross misconduct, including their fabrications of non-existent observations, evidence and information. 32. Plaintiff, therefore, asserts that due to the clear absence of any viable probable cause to warrant her criminal prosecution, at any point, she was denied her rights to fair trial and due process, and that Plaintiff was maliciously prosecuted up until the criminal charges were dismissed and sealed pursuant to New York Criminal Law and Procedure which constituted a termination of the criminal proceedings in favor of the accused. 33. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, arrested, deployed excessive force and initiated a malicious prosecution against Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s exertion of her constitutional right to freely express her opinion and inquiries, namely Plaintiff’s displeasure with the manner in which Defendants addressed her, illegally searched her in open view of other people, and her request for an explanation as to why Defendants acted so discourteously toward Plaintiff. 34. As a result, Plaintiff developed a severe fear of police officers, which prevented her from venturing from her house for a period of time, and has effectively permanently chilled her desire and ability to communicate with police officers. 35. Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, engaged in a conspiracy to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff by personally conferring with each other, regarding the fabrication of the aforementioned non-existent evidence and 9 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 observations, as well the manner and means by which said fabrications would be forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office. 36. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, who violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, are part of a larger pattern and practice of similar misconduct, which is so widespread, pervasive and consistent throughout the NYPD and the City of New York that the commission such constitutionally violative behavior has become tantamount to an official policy or custom within the NYPD and City of New York or, at the very least, conclusive evidence that the City and the NYPD have either tacitly approved of such egregious wrongdoings or that they have become deliberately indifferent to the civil rights of those who may come into contact with their police officers. 37. The individually named Defendants herein, as well as other officers serving in the employ of the NYPD and City of New York, have blatantly, shamelessly, consistently and repeatedly engaged in conduct violative of the civil rights guaranteed and protected by Constitution of the United States, in addition to the laws and Constitution of the State of New York, all without incurring any ramifications for such misconduct and, ostensibly, with the full and complete blessing of the NYPD, the City of New York and their respective policymakers and supervisors. 38. The New York Times, as well as numerous other reputable journalistic enterprises, have reported on the widespread corruption within the NYPD and City of New York, particularly the incredibly disconcerting proclivity of many NYPD officers to lie about subject matters that are materially relevant to criminal prosecutions, including the complete fabrication of arrest evidence and witnesses. Also detailed, is the NYPD’s obstinate refusal to effectuate corrective or preventive measures to combat the inevitable recurrence of such misdeeds, and perhaps most 10 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 troubling, the NYPD’s alarming tendency to, instead, reward and promote these officers, including those who were inculpated via incontrovertible evidence, such as video evidence. 39. The constitutionally repugnant behavior that persists within the ranks of the NYPD results from the NYPD’s own policies, rules and procedures, namely the NYPD’s incredibly flawed and illegal use of arrest quotas. Despite its illegality, such policies remain systemin throughout the NYPD and its individual commands. The NYPD, however, was not content in compelling its officers to effect as many arrests as possible, regardless of the presence of any legal right to do, it promulgated various subsets of quotas, which are predicated on race, color or ethnicity. Additionally, the NYPD, its supervisors or policymakers would assign varying point values to arrests, which were, again, impermissibly based upon the arrestee’s race, color or ethnicity. Unsurprisingly, officers would be better rewarded for minority arrests or summonses. This egregious conduct has reported by numerous respected media outlets and publications and has even formed the basis for federal lawsuits against the City and the NYPD, which were commenced by its own employee officers. 40. On June 17, 2020, the New York Daily News published an article, by Graham Rayman, entitled “Brooklyn Cop Claims he was Punished for not Meeting Arrest Quotas, Refusing to Take Responsibility for Controversial Arrest in which he Wasn’t Involved,” describing allegations from an NYPD Police Officer, Terrence Dickerson, that he was retaliated against by the NYPD for refusing to adhere to mandatory racially based arrest quotas and for his refusal to accept responsibility for a controversial and publicized arrest via the excessive force, despite the fact that he was not even at the scene. 41. Another article with a title that speaks for itself, also published by the New York Daily News, on December 5, 2019, and written by Graham Rayman, is entitled “Ex-Cop Details NYPD 11 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 ‘Collar Quotas’—Arrest Black and Hispanic Men, ‘No Cuffs on Soft Targets’ of Jews, Asians, Whites: Court Docs.” 42. The New York Times, on December 6, 2019, published an article by Joseph Goldstein and Ashley Southall, entitled “I Got Tired of Hunting Black and Hispanic People,” which revealed a disturbing account from a different NYPD Police Officer, Anthony Diaz, describing a police force that measures the quality of police work by the quantity of minority arrests. 43. On March 18, 2018, The New York Times published an explosive article, entitled “Promotions, Not Punishments for Officers Accused of Lying,” written by Joseph Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein shines a light on the multitude of flaws within the CCRB and the NYPD, highlighting the fact that the substantiation of a claim against an officer will invariably rely on the presence of incontrovertible proof against the officer. Due to the rarity availability of this type of evidence, an alarmingly small percentage of officer misconduct claims are substantiated. The CCRB is further handicapped by a terribly designed system that requires evidence of a virtually indisputable nature to substantiate any claim against an officer. The article also details the NYPD’s persistent reluctance to investigate or discipline officers who lie and even posits that this reluctance is a significant cause of the lying pandemic within the NYPD. The article references various officers and detectives who were the subject of credible accusations relating to the officers’ intentionally false statements, with some allegations coming from federal and state judges. 44. On September 12, 2019, The New York Times published another article by Joseph Goldstein, entitled “Officers Said They Smelled Pot. The Judge Called Them Liars.” Unsurprisingly, this article dealt with the unusually high frequency of officers using the odor of marijuana to excuse a search that conspicuously does not result in the recovery of any marijuana. 12 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 It should not require an article in The New York Times to call attention to such patently disingenuous tactics, but has become necessary for a variety of reasons, including the NYPD’s failure to correct such behavior, the willingness of prosecutors and judges to credit the lying officers and the increasing rate of occurrence. 45. On April 24, 2019, The New York Times published an article, entitled “Detective’s Lies Sent Three People to Prison, Prosecutors Charge,” by Sean Piccolo, detailing the lies of NYPD Second Grade Detective Joseph Franco and how those lies resulted in the imprisonment of at least three innocent people. The article described how Det. Franco lied about observing drug transactions on at least three separate occasions, lies that were only uncovered through contradictory video evidence. Det. Franco’s lies resulted in the innocent individuals each being sentenced to prison terms in excess of one-year. 46. Other articles include: (i) “Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem.,” by Joseph Goldstein, The New York Times, March 18, 2018; (ii) “New York Detective Charged with Faking Lineup Results,” by Joseph Goldstein, The New York Times, February 17, 2018; (iii) “He Excelled as a Detective, Until Prosecutors Stopped Believing Him,” by Joseph Goldstein, The New York Times, October 17, 2017; (iv) “Review Board Notes Rise in New York Police Officers’ False Statement,” by J. David Goodman, The New York Times, May 14, 2015; (v) “In Brooklyn Gun Cases, Suspicion Turns to the Police,” by Stephanie Clifford, The New York Times, December 11, 2014; (vi) “Detective is Found Guilty of Planting Drugs,” by Tim Stelloh, The New York Times, November 1, 2011; and (vii) “The Drugs? They Came from the Police,” by Jim Dwyer, The New York Times, October 13, 2011. 47. The NYPD has a longstanding and ignominious record of failing to discipline its officers, or even entertaining allegations of wrongdoing against them. On June 26, 2019, The New York 13 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Times published an article, entitled “2,495 Reports of Police Bias. Not One Was Deemed Valid by the N.Y.P.D.” This article reported that within the last five (5) years, almost 2,500 separate individuals have filed formal complaints with the NYPD alleging that an officer acted with bias toward them, with not a single one being substantiated by the NYPD. Such a finding is plainly incredible and obviously the result of deliberately poor or nonexistent investigatory protocols. The report further impugned the NYPD’s commitment to combat the prejudices and the biases exhibited by many of its officers. 48. Upon information and belief, the NYPD, the City of New York, and their respective policymakers, officials or supervisors have imposed, tacitly approved or acquiesced to policies, customs, or patterns and practices within the NYPD that resulted in Plaintiff’s arrest without probable cause. 49. Upon information and belief, the NYPD, the City of New York, and their respective policymakers or supervisors have failed to provide adequate training regarding the identification of probable cause, reasonable suspicion or the appropriate amount of force to be used. 50. Defendants’ actions, pursuant to Plaintiff’s underlying arrest, which occurred without even the semblance of probable cause, were so blatantly violative of Plaintiff’s civil rights that the tacit approval of identical or similar acts by the policymakers or supervisors of the NYPD and the City of New York, as well as their deliberate indifference towards the rights of any individuals who may come into contact with Defendants, should be inferred, because such flagrant deprivations of constitutionally protected rights could not and would not occur without the tacit approval or deliberate indifference regarding the commission of such violations by the policymakers or supervisors of the NYPD and City of New York. 14 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 51. Upon information and belief, further details and facts, relating to the unlawful policies, customs or patterns and practices of the NYPD, City of New York and their respective policymakers, supervisors, police officers or employees, will become known after the completion of discovery, as such information is presently within the exclusive possession of Defendants, the NYPD and City of New York. 52. Upon information and belief, the personnel files, records and disciplinary histories of the officer Defendants will reveal a history of Constitutional violations indicative of Defendant City’s knowledge that the individual officer Defendants were unfit for employment as NYPD officers, or for employment in general, and that the probability of the individually named Defendants committing similar violations in the future was extremely high. 53. Upon information and belief, said personnel files, records and disciplinary histories will conclusively show that the City and the NYPD were fully aware of Defendants’ past constitutional violations, the unacceptably high probability for the recurrence of similar transgressions, the unreasonably dangerous situations that were likely to result from their hiring or retention, as well as their unsuitability for employment as law enforcement officers, or for employment in general, and that the NYPD and City of New York failed to engage in any preventive or corrective action intended to diminish the likelihood of recurrence for such violations, which is tantamount to the City’s tacit approval of such misconduct or the City’s deliberate indifference towards the civil rights of those who may interact with its employees, including Defendants, PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10. 54. Upon information and belief, the individually named Defendants have combined to be named as Defendants in numerous lawsuits that have accused them of committing violations 15 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 similar or identical to those alleged herein, all of which have resulted no disciplinary or corrective action of any kind. 55. Upon information and belief, the NYPD and City of New York and have failed, or outright refused, to correct the individually named Defendants’ predilections to engage in unconstitutional behavior or attempt to prevent the recurrence of such misconduct. 56. The aforementioned acts of Defendants, including PEREZ, SOMMELLA, and JOHN or JANE DOE 1-10, directly or proximately resulted in the deprivation or violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights, as guaranteed and protected by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as the laws and Constitution of the State of New York. 57. As a direct or proximate result of said acts, Plaintiff was caused to suffer the loss of her liberty, irreparable reputational harm, loss of earnings and potential earnings, physical injury, as well as severe and permanent emotional distress, including fear, embarrassment, humiliation, traumatization, frustration, extreme inconvenience, and anxiety. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Free Speech Retaliation Claim Under New York State Law 58. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 59. Plaintiff engaged in speech and activities that were protected by Article I, Section 8, of the New York State Constitution. 60. Defendants committed impermissible or unlawful actions against Plaintiff that were motivated or substantially caused by Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or activities. 61. Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff resulted in the deprivation of his/her liberty and the initiation of criminal charges against him/her. 62. Defendants’ retaliatory actions adversely affected Plaintiff’s protected speech or activities by physically or procedurally preventing him/her from further pursuing said protected 16 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 speech or activities or by chilling his/her desire to further participate or engage in such protected speech or activities. 63. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s right to engage in protected speech and activities, guaranteed and protected by Article I, Section 8, of the New York State Constitution, was violated by Defendants. 64. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoings, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 65. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION First Amendment Retaliation Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants 66. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 67. Plaintiff engaged in speech and activities that were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 68. Defendants committed impermissible or unlawful actions against Plaintiff that were motivated or substantially caused by Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or activities. 69. Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff resulted in the deprivation of his liberty and the initiation of criminal charges against him. 70. Defendants’ retaliatory actions adversely affected Plaintiff’s protected speech or activities by physically or procedurally preventing him from further pursuing said protected speech or activities, or by chilling his desire to further participate or engage in such protected speech or activities. 17 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 71. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s right to engage in protected speech and activities, as guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, was violated by Defendants. 72. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Search and Seizure Under New York State Law 73. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 74. Defendants subjected Plaintiff and his property to unreasonable searches and seizures without a valid warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause do so. 75. Plaintiff was conscious and fully aware of the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person and property. 76. Plaintiff did not consent to the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person or property. 77. The unreasonable searches and seizures to Plaintiff’s person and property were not otherwise privileged. 78. Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to Article I, Section 12, of the New York State Constitution and Article II, Section 8, of the New York Civil Rights Law. 79. Defendant City of New York, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoings under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 80. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 Unlawful Search and Seizure Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants 81. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 82. Defendants subjected Plaintiff and his property to unreasonable searches and seizures without a valid warrant and without reasonable suspicion or probable cause do so. 83. Plaintiff was conscious and fully aware of the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person and property. 84. Plaintiff did not consent to the unreasonable searches and seizures to his person or property. 85. The unreasonable searches and seizures to Plaintiff’s person and property were not otherwise privileged. 86. Accordingly, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 87. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Arrest and False Imprisonment Under New York State Law 88. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 89. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to false arrest, false imprisonment, and deprivation of liberty without a valid warrant or probable cause. 90. Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement. 91. Plaintiff did not consent to his confinement. 92. Plaintiff’s arrest and false imprisonment was not otherwise privileged. 19 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 93. Defendant City of New York, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoings under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 94. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Arrest and False Imprisonment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants 95. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 96. The Defendants violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by wrongfully and illegally arresting, detaining and imprisoning Plaintiff. 97. The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest, detention, and imprisonment of Plaintiff was carried out without a valid warrant, without Plaintiff’s consent, and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. 98. At all relevant times, Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending, arresting, and imprisoning Plaintiff. 99. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Assault and Battery Under New York State Law 100. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 101. At all relevant times, Defendants caused Plaintiff to fear for his physical well-being and safety and placed him in apprehension of immediate harmful and/or offensive touching. 102. Defendants engaged in and subjected Plaintiff to immediate harmful or offensive touching and battered him without his consent or justification. 20 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 103. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damages. 104. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 105. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Excessive Force Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual Defendants 106. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 107. The Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, because they used unreasonable force without Plaintiff’s consent. 108. Defendants engaged in and subjected Plaintiff to immediate harmful or offensive touching and battered him without his consent. 109. As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious Prosecution Under New York State Law 110. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 111. Defendants initiated the prosecution against Plaintiff. 112. Defendants lacked probable cause to believe Plaintiff was guilty or that the prosecution could succeed. 113. Defendants acted with malice, which, in the absence of probable cause, may be inferred. 114. The prosecution was terminated in Plaintiff’s favor, when all criminal charges were unconditionally dismissed and sealed. 21 of 37 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/19/2024 11:00 AM INDEX NO. 511242/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024 115. Due to the intentional, willful and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered significant damages. 116. Defendant City, as employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 117. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful conduct, Plaintiff sustained the damages hereinbefore alleged. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Malicious Prosecution Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Against Individual