NYC Defends Police Officers Accused of Misconduct No Matter How Egregious
I have been handling litigation for plaintiffs for more than two decades involving allegations of police misconduct, and I have never seen the city decline to represent a police civil defendant no matter how egregious the apparent misconduct.
March 18, 2019 at 04:08 PM
3 minute read
Regarding Daniel Connolly's letter published March 18, 2019, entitled “To Say That Officers Are Not Disciplined Is False,” Mr. Connolly contends that “[f]or decades” the Corporation Counsel's Office or Law Department for New York City makes an individualized decision in every case where a police officer is accused of misconduct whether to defend and indemnify the officer for compensatory and punitive damages. He suggests that officers may be disciplined upon the recommendation of the Law Department.
However, I wonder whether Mr. Connolly can cite a single case where the city declined to defend and indemnify an officer accused of misconduct. I wonder whether he can cite a single case where an officer was disciplined following the defense of a civil case by the Law Department.
I have been handling litigation for plaintiffs for more than two decades involving allegations of police misconduct, and I have never seen the city decline to represent a police civil defendant no matter how egregious the apparent misconduct. This may be tactical in part, since if the city is also accused of liability its interest may be in defending the officers, no matter how bad their misconduct. Large amounts of money are paid out in settlements and then the city moves on with no apparent consequence for the officer who caused the loss. Indeed, New York City comptrollers going back to the 1980s have issued several reports criticizing the Police and the Law Department for a lack of a coordinated response where there are substantiated claims against police officers.
It is dismaying, in case after case, to obtain discovery—always over the vigorous resistance of the city Law Department and, upon its insistence, under seal—showing inordinate numbers of complaints against police officers for allegedly stealing the property and money of arrestees, planting evidence, fabricating complaints covering up excessive force with false allegations of “disorderly conduct” and resisting arrest,” and withholding exculpatory evidence. These complaints almost always are dismissed or found to be “unsubstantiated,” even in cases where the police witnesses contradict each other or have apparently fabricated defenses because the Civilian Complaint Review Board and the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau will virtually never credit a civilian over an officer.
When the civil suit ultimately settles, the Law Department insists on settlement language disclaiming any admission of wrongdoing and proclaiming that the settlement cannot be used in subsequent litigation, and it continues to insist that the officer's disciplinary history remain secret from the public for whom the city's lawyers, and its police officers, work.
If there's a concern with consequences for the individual officers, it is not apparent.
Joel B. Rudin is a New York criminal defense and civil rights lawyer.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250