You are on page 1of 172

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

THE New York, NY 10005


20 0 SANDERS B: 212-652-2782

111
F: 212-652-2783
FIRM,P.c. 0000
May 30, 2018

Chairman Vincent G. Bradley


New York State Liquor Authority
80 S. Swan Street, 9th Floor
Albany, N.Y. 12210-8002

On Premise License No.: 1273975,


Related Class Nos.: 252 and 901

Dear Chairman Bradley:

I've been hired to investigate the 'selective enforcement' policing practices under the
authority of New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravallel and Deputy
Inspector Emmanuel Gonzalez, Commanding Officer of the 72nd Precinct and Special Operations
Lieutenant William Meyer related to the KB Venture Group, LLC d/b/a Club Love & Lust 225
47th Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220. KB and Jairam's license is 'inactive.' KB and Jairam are
seeking an immediate 'reconsideration and reinstatement.'

Thus far, the KB and Jairam has filed a Notice of Claim with the New York City
Comptroller's Office and intends to file other legal actions to protect its rights. KB and Jairam
alleges violations of The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Race Discrimination), The
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection — Selection Enforcement and
Monell) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Conspiracy). The Notice of Claim filing and related documents
are included for your review and consideration.

Prior to and during the course of the preliminary investigation, I noticed an alarming
pattern of similar 'selective enforcement' policing practices within the NYPD 40, 72, 77, 79, 88,
102, 106, 110 Precincts and other patrol commands. The targets are: On Premise (OP) license
holders of color2, business owners of color and establishments catering to the underserved target
market (primarily persons of color) culturally connected to the hip-hop community with more
than $500 billion in discretionary income to spend upon entertainment. After recently meeting
with several business owners and other stakeholders, I anticipate filing other legal actions related
to similar patterns of 'selective enforcement.'

Under the New York State Liquor Authority, the 'focal point' standard was used by
Stravalle, Gonzalez, Meyer and other actors in the 'scheme' to perpetuate a fraud upon the courts
to 'benefit' themselves and others with overtime, organizational donations, gifts and other

' Retired Captain of Police with the Police Department City of New York
2 This includes African-Americans or of African descent, Hispanics and Asians

WWW.THESANDERSFIRMPC.COM
pecuniary gains. Based upon the preliminary investigation, this matter warrants a criminal
investigation into these 'selective enforcement' policing practices.3

Prior to October 2014, Red Leopard Lounge, LLC d/b/a Jaguars 3 operated an
entertainment business with an On Premises (OP) Liquor License at 225 47th Street Brooklyn,
N.Y. 11220. This establishment was owned and managed by Caucasian males. Its target market
was working class Caucasian males.

While in business, the NYPD and Stravalle rarely if ever issued 'false' violations, 'false'
summonses, engaged in 'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks, 'unlawful' Business
Inspections and other unlawful activities based upon the race and/or national origin of the
business owners, patrons and other stakeholders.

According to the New York State Liquor Authority's website, there's no data to establish
the license holder's race and/or national origin. There's no data to evaluate 'selective
enforcement' due to the license holder's race and/or national origin. Nor is there data to evaluate
SLA fines and other penalties due to the license holder's race and/or national origin.

In or around October 2014, KB and Jairam opened for business. Shortly thereafter, Meyer
and Stravalle began the campaign of harassment to close the business due to their race and/or
national origin. These parties including NYPD Patrol Borough Brooklyn South Assistant Chief
Steven M. Powers subjected the business, its patrons and other stakeholders to unlawful
`selective enforcement' activities despite a previous ruling, in Sulkowska v. City of New York, et
al., 129 F.Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. January 24, 2001, due to their race and/or national origin.

In or around November 2016, KB and Jairam discontinued a business relationship with


Elite Investigations Ltd.4 Shortly thereafter, Elite Investigations Ltd made 'false' allegations to
the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau claiming they were paying off the police for protection.
Stravalle, Gonzalez, Meyer, other NYPD actors in conspiracy with Elite Investigations, Ltd.,
began issuing 'false' violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in 'false' arrests, legally baseless
stop and frisks, 'unlawful' Business Inspections and other unlawful activities based upon the race
and/or national origin of the business owner, patrons and other stakeholders.

From November 2016, through this time period, several complaints about the 'selective
enforcement' were filed with the City of New York through the Police Commissioner's Office,
Patrol Borough Brooklyn South and 72nd Precinct. Throughout this time period, Gonzalez
attempted to secure several personal 'benefits' from KB and Jairam including 11 'free' roundtrip
tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico and a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar
Caban Badillo, MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

On or about October 1, 2017, KB and Jairam sponsored a hurricane relief fund raising

3 The 'selective enforcement' policing practices includes but, not limited to issuing 'false' violations, 'false'
summonses, engaging in 'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks, 'unlawful' Business Inspections and other
unlawful activities based upon the race and/or national origin of the business owners, patrons and other stakeholders.
4 Upon information and belief, the owners and/or other stakeholders are retired members of the Police Department
City of New York

WWW.THESANDZRSFIRMPC.COM
event to benefit the people of Puerto Rico.

On or about October 4, 2017, while still taking 'selective enforcement' actions against
KB and Jairam, Gonzalez requested that they deliver a generator for family member or friend Dr.
Oscar Caban Badillo, MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603. KB and Jairam considered but
DENIED Gonzalez's request to deliver a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar Caban
Badillo, MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

Shortly thereafter, while still taking 'selective enforcement' actions against KB and
Jairam, Gonzalez requested 11 'free' roundtrip tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico, a fair
market value of approximately $80k. KB and Jairam considered Gonzalez's request and
connected him via conference call to Joseph Antonio Cartagenia aka 'Fat Joe.' KB and Jairam
considered but DENIED Gonzalez's request for 11 'free' roundtrip tickets on charter flights to
Puerto Rico.

On or about April 24, 2018, frustrated with the 'selective enforcement' KB and Jairam
sought assistance from Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7, which in turn offered the following
statement: "My community was very concerned when this business opened several years ago as
Jaguars 3 (Red Leopard) and, at the beginning, there were community complaints about the
activities of the patrons and how the business operated. However, in the past four years our
office has received no complaints about the operation of the business nor the behavior of the
patrons. In fact, we have record of only a few quality of life complaints in the immediate vicinity
and none have identified Love and Lust as the progenitor of these complaints."

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, KB and Jairam are seeking an immediate
`reconsideration and reinstatement' including a criminal investigation into the 'selective
enforcement' policing practices of Stravalle, Gonzalez, Meyer and other actors in the 'scheme'
to perpetuate a fraud upon the courts to 'benefit' themselves and other actors with overtime,
organizational donations, gifts and other pecuniary gains.

S. cerely,

Eric Sanders

ES/es

cc: New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo


New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio
Commissioner Greeley T. Ford
Zone 1— NYC Deputy Chief Executive Officer Michael Jones

WWW.THESANEARSFIRMPC.COM
EXHIBIT 1
eCLAIM Receipt
You have successfully filed your claim.

By successfully filing your claim, you have certified that all information provided is true and correct to
the best of your knowledge and belief. You also understand that the willful making of any false
statement of material fact herein may subject you to criminal penalties and civil liabilities.

Please allow up to 30 days to receive an email acknowledging your claim.

If you have any questions please contact 212-669-3916.

Your Receipt Number is the following:

201800044674

You uploaded:
Claim Form: 1
Supporting Documents:4

5/21/2018 5:14 PM
Claimant Last Name:Jairman
Claimant First Name:lmran
Office of the New York City Comptroller
1 Centre Street
New York City Comptroller New York, NY 10007
Scott M. Stringer
Form Version: NYC-COMPT-BLA-PI1-D

Personal Injury Claim Form


Electronically filed claims must be filed at the NYC Comptroller's Website. If your claim is not resolved
within 1 year and 90 days from the date of occurrence you must start legal action to preserve your rights.

l am C On behalf of myself. (F Attorney is filing.


On behalf of someone else. If on someone else's Attorney Information (If daimant is represented by attorney)
behalf, please provide the following Information.
Firm or Last Name: The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Last Name:
Firm or First Name:
First Name:
Address: 30 Wall Street
Relationship to
the claimant: Address 2: 8th Floor
City: New York
State: NEW YORK
Claimant Information
Zip Code: 10005
*Last Name:
Tax ID:
*First Name:
Phone #: (212) 652-2782
*Address:
*Email Address: esanders@thesandersfirmpc.com
Address 2:
*Retype Email esanders@thesandersfirmpc.com
"City: Address:
*State: The time and place where the claim arose
*Zip Code:
*Date of Incident: 05/19/2018 Format:MM/DD/YYYY
*Country:
Time ofIncident 3:00 AM Format HH:MM AM/PM
Date of Birth: Format:MM/DD/YYYY
*Location of Inside and Outside
Soc. Sec. # Incident:
HICN:
(Medicare #)
Date of Death:
Phone:
*Email Address:
*Retype Email
Address:
Occupation:
City Employee? Yes (.- No C NA
Gender (F Male r Female C Other
Address: 225 47th Street
Address 2:
City: Brooklyn
*State: NEW YORK
Borough: BROOKLYN (KINGS)
*Denotes required fields. A Claimant OR an AttorneyEmailAddressisrequired.
Office of the New York City Comptroller
1 Centre Street
New York City Comptroller
New York, NY 10007
Scott M. Stringer

*Manner in which
claim arose:
-See Attached-

*Denotes requiredfield.
Office of the New York City Comptroller
1 Centre Street
New York City Comptroller
New York, NY 10007
Scott M. Stringer

TheItems of $125 Million Dollars (Lost Revenue, Mental Anguish and Punitive Damages)
damage or injuries
claimed are
(include dollar
amounts):
Office of the New York City Comptroller
1 Centre Street
New York City Comptroller
New York, NY 10007
Scott M. Stringer

Medical Information Witness 1 Information

1st Treatment Date: Format:MM/DD/YYYY Last Name:


Hospital/Name: First Name:
Address: Address
Address 2: Address 2:
City: City:
State: State:
Zip Code: Zip Code: Phone:
Date Treated in Format:MM/DD/YYYY
Witness 2 Information
Emergency Room:
Was claimant taken to hospital by r Yes r No NA Last Name:
an ambulance?
First Name:
Employment Information (If daiming lost wages) Address
Employer's Name: Address 2:
Address City:
Address 2: State:
City: Zip Code: Phone:
State: Witness 3 Information
Zip Code:
Last Name:
Work Days Lost:
First Name:
Amount Earned
Weekly: Address
Address 2:
Treating Physician Information
City:
Last Name:
State:
First Name:
Zip Code: Phone:
Address:
Address 2: Witness 4 Information

City: Last Name:


State: First Name:
Zip Code: Address
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code: Phone:
Office of the New York City Comptroller
1 Centre Street
New York City Comptroller New York, NY 10007
Scott M. Stringer

Complete if daim involves a NYC vehide

Owner of vehide claimant Was traveling in Non-City vehicle driver

Last Name: Last Name:


First Name: First Name:
Address Address
Address 2: Address 2:
City: City:
State: State:
Zip Code: Tip Code:

Insurance Information Non-City vehicle information

Insurance Company Make, Model, Year


Name: of Vehicle:
Address Plate #:
Address 2: VIN #:
City: City vehicle information
State:
Plate It:
Zip Code:

Policy #:
Phone #: City Driver Last
Name:
Description of C Driver C Passenger City Driver First
claimant Name:
C Pedestrian C Bicyclist
r Motorcyclist Other

Total Amount Format:Do not include 1"or ",".


$125,000,000.00
Claimed:

The TotalAmount Claimed can only be entered once the following


required fields are entered:

ClaimantLastName
ClaimantFirstName
Claimant Address,City,State,Zip Code, andCountry
ClaimantEmailor AttorneyEmail
Date ofIncident
Location ofIncident (including State)
Mannerin which claim arose

I certify that allinformation containedin this notice is true andcorrect to the best ofmy knowledge and belief.I understand that the willful
making ofany false statement ofmaterial fact herein willsubject me to criminalpenalties andcivilliabilities.
Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and IMRAN A.

JAIRAM files these claims against Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P.

O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON

BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA;

UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ;

JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALLY

IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in

conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle, alleging that:

CLAIMANTS'

1. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM, allege since October 2014, Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK;

JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM

MEYER; JASON BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ;

CHRISTOPHER SHEA; UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD

IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ; JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO

FRAGOSO; VITALLY IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR

ISHMEET in conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority

Investigator Charles A. Stravallel have engaged in 'biased' and 'retaliatory' selective

enforcement actions designed to drive him out of business.

2. Claimant KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST, is a

' New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle retired from the NYPD as a Captain of police.
Since working with the New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle have been accused and
sued for 'biased' selective enforcement activities.
domestic limited liability corporation legally operating under the laws of the State of New York,

and at all relevant times operated as an entertainment business 225 47th Street Brooklyn, N.Y.

11220.

3. Claimant IMRAN A. JAIRAM is the principal owner of KB VENTURE

GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and self-identifies as Guyanese.

RESPONDENTS'

4. Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation organized

under the laws of the State of New York.

5. Respondent JAMES P. O'NEILL, as Police Commissioner.

6. Respondent STEVEN M. POWERS, as Assistant Chief, Commanding Officer,

Patrol Borough Brooklyn South.

7. Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ, as Deputy Inspector, Commanding

Officer, 72nd Precinct.

8. Respondent WILLIAM MEYER, as Special Operations Lieutenant, 72nd Precinct.

9. Respondent JASON BOLGGER, as Lieutenant, 72nd Precinct.

10. Respondent THOMAS REDMOND, as Sergeant, 72nd Precinct.

11. Respondent WILLIAM HERNANDEZ, as Sergeant, 72nd Precinct.

12. Respondent CHRISTOPHER SHEA, as Sergeant, 72nd Precinct.

13. Respondent UMAR CHEEMA, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

14. Respondent PETER P. CIAPPA, II, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

15. Respondent NAOMI TATIS, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

16. Respondent CHAD IVERSON, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

17. Respondent JOSE RUIZ, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

2
18. Respondent JOHN LATTANZIO, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

19. Respondent ROMAN RASHEVSKIY, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

20. Respondent LORENZO FRAGOSO, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

21. Respondent VITALIY IONASHKO, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

22. Respondent CAITLIN MANNEY, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

23. Respondent ALEXANDR TILAN, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

24. Respondent BABAR ISHMEET, as Police Officer, 72nd Precinct.

BACKGROUND

25. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges prior to October 2014, Red Leopard Lounge, LLC d/b/a Jaguars 3

operated an entertainment business with an On Premises (OP) Liquor License for 225 47th Street

Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220. (Exhibit 1).

26. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege Red Leopard Lounge, LLC d/b/a Jaguars 3 was owned and managed

by Caucasian males.

27. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege Red Leopard Lounge, LLC d/b/a Jaguars 3' target market was

working class Caucasian males.

28. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege while in business, Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK and

New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle rarely if ever issued 'false'

violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in 'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks,

`unlawful' Business Inspections and other unlawful selective enforcement activities based upon

3
the race and/or national origin of the business owners, patrons and other stakeholders at Red

Leopard Lounge, LLC d/b/a Jaguars 3.

29. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege 225 47th Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220, is located within Respondent

THE CITY OF NEW YORK Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7, encompassing the

neighborhoods of Sunset Park and Windsor Terrace, zip codes 11215, 11220 and 11232.

30. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege according to Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK'S data,

Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7, the population is estimated to be 152.6k residents.

31. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege according to Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK'S data,

Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7, the population demographics (percentages) includes: 22.0

White (Non-Hispanic), 2.6 Black (Non-Hispanic), 31.6 Asian (Non-Hispanic), 1.8 Other (Non-

Hispanic) and 42.0 Hispanic (Of any race).

32. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege according to Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK'S data,

Brooklyn Community BoardNo.: 7, 225 47th Street is located within an Industrial Business Zone.

33. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege after performing some market research, the decision was made to

invest in 225 47th Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220.

34. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges the underserved target market are people (primarily persons of

color) culturally connected to the hip-hop community with more than $500 billion in

4
discretionary income to spend upon entertainment.

35. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges the underserved target market includes celebrities from the sports,

media and entertainment industries.

36. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege on or about August 6, 2013, there was a public filing within the

New York State Department of State Division of Corporations to establish the domestic limited

liability company. (Exhibit 2).

37. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege on or about September 30, 2013, there was a public filing within the

New York State Liquor Authority to establish On-Premises (OP) Liquor Licenses for 225 47th

Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220. (Exhibit 3).

38. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges during the aforementioned times periods, modifications were made

to 225 47th Street Brooklyn, N.Y. 11220.

39. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges from January 1, 2011 through May 20, 2018, according to the New

York State Liquor Authority's website, the SLA issued and managed within zip code 11215, 622

licenses of all types including 309 OP or On Premises.

40. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges from January 1, 2011 through May 20, 2018, according to the New

York State Liquor Authority's website, the SLA issued and managed within zip code 11220, 431

licenses of all types including 109 OP or On Premises.

5
41. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges from January 1, 2011 through May 20, 2018, according to the New

York State Liquor Authority's website, the SLA issued and managed within zip code 11232, 209

licenses of all types including 80 OP or On Premises.

42. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges, according to the New York State Liquor Authority's website,

there's no data to establish the license holder's race and/or national origin.

43. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges, according to the New York State Liquor Authority's website,

there's no data to evaluate selective enforcement due to the license holder's race and/or national

origin.

44. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges, according to the New York State Liquor Authority's website,

there's no data to evaluate SLA fines and other penalties due to the license holder's race and/or

national origin.

45. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that in or around October 2014, they opened for business.

46. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM allege shortly thereafter Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK

through Respondent WILLIAM MEYER and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle began the campaign of harassment to close the business due to their race

and/or national origin.

47. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

6
IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Respondent THE CITY OF NEW YORK through

Respondents' JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ;

WILLIAM MEYER and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle

subjected the business, its patrons and other stakeholders to unlawful selective enforcement

activities despite a previous ruling in Sulkowska v. City of New York, et al., 129 F.Supp. 2d 274

(S.D.N.Y. January 24, 2001 (Exhibit 4), due to their race and/or national origin.

48. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that despite the ruling in Sulkowska, Respondent THE CITY OF

NEW YORK through Respondents' JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS;

EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER and New York State Liquor Authority

Investigator Charles A. Stravalle continue the aforementioned unlawful selective enforcement

activities citywide based upon the race and/or national origin of the On Premises (OP) license

holder.

49. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that despite the ruling in Sulkowska, Respondent THE CITY OF

NEW YORK through Respondents' JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS;

EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER and New York State Liquor Authority

Investigator Charles A. Stravalle continue the aforementioned unlawful selective enforcement

activities citywide based upon the race and/or national origin of the business owner, patrons and

other stakeholders.

50. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that in or around November 2016, they discontinued a business

relationship with Elite Investigations Ltd.


51. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that shortly thereafter, Elite Investigations Ltd made 'false'

allegations to the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau claiming they were paying off the police for

protection.

52. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that shortly thereafter to this day, Respondents' THE CITY OF

NEW YORK; JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ;

WILLIAM MEYER; JASON BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ;

CHRISTOPHER SHEA; UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD

IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ; JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO

FRAGOSO; VITALIY IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR

ISHMEET in conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority

Investigator Charles A. Stravalle began issuing 'false' violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in

`false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks, 'unlawful' Business Inspections and other

unlawful selective enforcement activities based upon the race and/or national origin of the

business owner, patrons and other stakeholders. (Exhibits 5 through 8).

53. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P.

O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON

BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA;

UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ;

JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY

IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in

8
conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle's actions are designed to drive him out of business.

54. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that throughout this time period to this day, several complaints

about the selective enforcement were filed with Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK;

JAMES P. O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS and EMMANUEL GONZALEZ.

55. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that throughout this time period, Respondent EMMANUEL

GONZALEZ attempted to secure several personal 'benefits' from them including 11 'free'

roundtrip tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico and a generator for family member or friend

Dr. Oscar Caban Badillo, MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

56. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that on or about October 1, 2017, they sponsored a hurricane relief

fund raising event to benefit the people of Puerto Rico.

57. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that on or about October 4, 2017, while still taking selective

enforcement actions against them, Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ requested that they

deliver a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar Caban Badillo, MD 486 Ave Victoria

Aguadilla, PR 00603. (Exhibit 9).

58. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM considered but DENIED Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ'S

request to deliver a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar Caban Badillo, MD 486

Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

9
59. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that shortly thereafter, while still taking selective enforcement

actions against them, Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ requested 11 'free' roundtrip

tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico, a fair market value of approximately $80k.

60. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM considered Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ'S request and

connected him via conference call to a well-known artist.

61. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM considered but DENIED Respondent EMMANUEL GONZALEZ'S for 11

`free' roundtrip tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico.

62. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that on or about April 24, 2018, Respondent THE CITY OF NEW

YORK through Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7, writing "My community was very

concerned when this business opened several years ago as Jaguars 3 (Red Leopard) and, at the

beginning, there were community complaints about the activities of the patrons and how the

business operated. However, in the past four years our office has received no complaints about

the operation of the business nor the behavior of the patrons. In fact, we have record of only a

few quality of life complaints in the immediate vicinity and none have identified Love and Lust

as the progenitor of these complaints." (Exhibit 10).

63. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7's position is 'accurate' and

in direct contradiction with Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P. O'NEILL;

STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON BOLGER;

10
THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA; UMAR

CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ; JOHN

LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY IONASHKO;

CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in conspiracy with Elite

Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle's

position that the business is a 'focal point' of the police and therefore, must be closed.

64. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and IMRAN A.

JAIRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P. O'NEILL;

STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON BOLGER;

THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA; UMAR

CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ; JOHN

LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY IONASHKO;

CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in conspiracy with Elite

Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle's

`false' violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in 'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks,

`unlawful' Business Inspections and other unlawful selective enforcement activities based upon

the race and/or national origin of the business owner, patrons and other stakeholders are

designed to cause them irreparable harm.

65. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and IMRAN A.

JAlRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P. O'NEILL;

STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON BOLGER;

THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA; UMAR

CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ; JOHN

11
LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY IONASHKO;

CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in conspiracy with Elite

Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle's

`false' violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in 'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks,

`unlawful' Business Inspections and other unlawful selective enforcement activities based upon

the race and/or national origin of the business owner, patrons and other stakeholders have caused

the underserved target market (primarily persons of color) culturally connected to the hip-hop

community to refrain from patronizing the establishment.

66. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P.

O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON

BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA;

UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ;

JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY

IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in

conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle's selective enforcement and intimidation actions have caused them to

sustain considerable economic damages.

67. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P.

O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON

BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA;

UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ;

12
JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY

IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in

conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle's selective enforcement and intimidation actions have caused them to

expend significant legal costs.

68. Claimants' KB VENTURE GROUP, LLC d/b/a CLUB LOVE and LUST and

IMRAN A. JAIRAM alleges that Respondents' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; JAMES P.

O'NEILL; STEVEN M. POWERS; EMMANUEL GONZALEZ; WILLIAM MEYER; JASON

BOLGER; THOMAS REDMOND; WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; CHRISTOPHER SHEA;

UMAR CHEEMA; PETER P. CIAPPA, II; NAOMI TATIS; CHAD IVERSON; JOSE RUIZ;

JOHN LATTANZIO; ROMAN RASHEVSKIY; LORENZO FRAGOSO; VITALIY

IONASHKO; CAITLIN MANNEY; ALEXANDR TILAN and BABAR ISHMEET in

conspiracy with Elite Investigations Ltd and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator

Charles A. Stravalle's actions are in violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(Race Discrimination), The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection —

Selection Enforcement and Monell) and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Conspiracy).

13
EXHIBIT 1
New York State Liquor Authority https://www.lran.sia.ny.gov/serviet/ApplicationServlet?pageName=co...

Forms Quick-And: Wholesale Forms Retail Forms

Help
'-&'60F5Ixotyribit Public Query - Results
tanitOrit,
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor License Information
Vincent G. Bradley, Chairman Serial Number: 1253912
Greeley T. Ford, Commissioner
License Type: ON-PREMISES LIQUOR
Home License Status: License is Inactive
Credit Group: 1
Public License Query
Filing Date: 05/11/2011
Wholesale
Effective Date: 02/02/2012
Expiration Date: 01/31/2014

Premises Information
BONGIORNO, JOSEPH E
AHERN, JOHN M
prindpars Name:
FIDUCCIA, ROBERT A
CLARK, JOEL
Premises Name: RED LEOPARD LOUNGE LLC
Trade Name: JAGUARS 3
Zone: 1
Address: 225 47TH ST

BROOKLYN, NY 11220
County: KINGS

You can select one of the following links to perform another search:
• Search by Name
• Search by License Number
• Search by Location
• Search by Principal
• Advance Search

Disclaimers I Confidentiality I Privacy I Security


New York State Liquor Authority • 80 S. Swan Street • 9th Floor • Albany, New York • 12210-8002

1 of 1 05/20/2018, 11:20 AM
New York State Liquor Authority https://www.tran.sla.ny.gov/servlet/ApplicationServlet?pageName=co...

Forms Quick-And: Wholesale Forms Retail Forms

Help

drx-coHof Public Query - Results


Gtto-Nntoit:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Ucense Information
Vincent G. Bradley, Chairman Ucense Type: ON-PREMISES LIQUOR
Greeley T. Ford, Commissioner
Ucense Status: License is Inactive
Home Credit Group: 1

Public License Query This record is for an additional bar. You may view the details of the main bar license
following link: 1253912
Wholesale
Premises Information
Principal's Name:
Premises Name: RED LEOPARD LOUNGE LLC
Trade Name: JAGUARS 3
Zone: 1
Address: 225 47TH ST

BROOKLYN, NY 11220
County: KINGS

You can select one of the following links to perform another search:

• Search by -Name
• Search by Ucense Number
• Search by Location
• Search by Principal
• Advance Search

Disclaimers I Confidentiality I Privacy I Security


New York State Liquor Authority • 80 S. Swan Street • 9th Floor • Albany, New York • 12210-8002

1 of 1 05/20/2018, 11:22 AM
EXHIBIT 2
-3ntity Information https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY

NYS Department of State

Division of Corporations

Entity Information ,

The information contained in this database is current through May 18, 2018.

Selected Entity Name: KB VENTURE GROUP LLC


Selected Entity Status Information
Current Entity Name: KB VENTURE GROUP LLC
DOS ID #: 4441458
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 06, 2013
County: KINGS
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

Selected Entity Address Information


DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
KB VENTURE GROUP LLC
225 47TH STREET
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, 11220
Registered Agent
NONE

This office does not require or maintain information


regarding the names and addresses of members or
managers of nonprofessional limited liability
companies. Professional limited liability companies
must include the name(s) and address(es) of the

of 2 05/20/2018, 12:37 PM
ntity Information https://appext20.dos.ny.gov/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY...

original members, however this information is not


recorded and only available by viewing the
certificate.

*Stock Information

# of Shares Type of Stock $ Value per Share


No Information Available

*Stock information is applicable to domestic business corporations.

Name History

Filing Date Name Type Entity Name


AUG 06, 2013 Actual KB VENTURE GROUP LLC

A Fictitious name must be used when the Actual name of a foreign entity is unavailable for use in New
York State. The entity must use the fictitious name when conducting its activities or business in New
York State.

NOTE: New York State does not issue organisational identification numbers.

Search Results New Search

Services/Programs I Privacy Policy I Accessibility Policy I Disclaimer I Return to DOS


Homepage I Contact Us

of 2 05/20/2018, 12:37 PM
EXHIBIT 3
few York State Liquor Authority https://wvvw.tran.sla.ny.goviservletapplicationServlet?pageName=co...

Forms Quick-Find: Wholesale Forms Retail Forms

Help

ST I f AM. :11-11:51TQ; Public Query - Results


AA-4:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor License Information
Vincent G. Bradley, Chairman Serial Number: 1273975
Greeley T. Ford, Commissioner
License Type: ON-PREMISES LIQUOR
Home License Status: License is Inactive
Credit Group: 3
Public License Query
Filing Date: 09/30/2013
Wholesale Effective Date: 10/01/2015
Expiration Date: 09/30/2017

Premises Information
Principal's Name: JAIRAM, IMRAN A
Premises Name: KB VENTURE GROUP LLC
Trade Name: LOVE & LUST
Zone: 1
Address: 225 47TH ST

BROOKLYN, NY 11220
County: KINGS

You can select one of the following links to perform another search:

• Search by Name
• Search by License Number
• Search by Location
• Search by Principal
• Advance Search

Disclaimers I Confidentiality I Privacy I Security


New York State Liquor Authority • 80 S. Swan Street • 9th Floor • Albany, New York • 12210-8002

of 1 05/20/2018, 12:01 PM
few York State Liquor Authority https://wwvv.tran.sla.ny.gov/servlet/ApplicalionServlet?pageName=co...

Forms Quick-Find: Wholesale Forms Retail Forms

Help

Public Query - Results


RAGE CON
Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor License Information
Vincent G. Bradley, Chairman
License Type: ON-PREMISES LIQUOR
Greeley T. Ford, Commissioner
License Status: License is Inactive
Home Credit Group: 4
Public License Query This record is for an additional bar. You may view the details of the main bar license
Wholesale following link: 1273975

Premises Information
Principal's Name:
Premises Name: KB VENTURE GROUP LLC
Trade Name:
Zone: 1
Address: 225 47TH ST

BROOKLYN, NY 11220
County: KINGS

You can select one of the following links to perform another search:
• Search by Name
• Search by License Number
• Search by Location
• Search by Principal
• Advance Search

Disclaimers I Confidentiality I Privacy I Security


New York State Liquor Authority • 80 S. Swan Street • 9th Floor • Albany, New York • 12210-8002

of 1 05/20/2018, 12:01 PM
EXHIBIT 4
A Caution
As of. January 22, 2017 12:30 AM EST

Sulkowska v. City of New York


United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
January 24, 2001, Decided ; January 24, 2001, Filed
99 Civ. 4228 (AGS)

Reporter
129 F. Supp. 2d 274 •; 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 516"
policy and practice that resulted in the violation of
STANISLAWA SULKOWSKA, Plaintiff, -against- THE plaintiffs constitutional rights. The court reasoned that
CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE COMMISSIONER defendant officer lacked probable cause to arrest
HOWARD SAFIR, POLICE OFFICER CHARLES plaintiff for any crime. Plaintiff had established by a
DASKALAKIS, and POLICE OFFICERS "A", "B", and preponderance of the credible evidence that there was
"C", Defendants. no reasonable basis for defendant officer's alleged belief
that plaintiff intended to deceive or to defraud him. Next,
Disposition: [—I] Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff the court found that defendant officer was liable for an
against defendants. assault and battery on plaintiff, because, without her
consent, he placed his hands on her, handcuffed her,
Core Terms and placed her into his police vehicle during the.course
arrest, license, liquor license, training, Conditions, of the unlawful arrest.
photocopy, premises, liquor, damages, Precinct, false
Outcome
arrest, original license, forgery, municipal, police officer,
displayed, custody, rights, malicious prosecution, The court found that defendant officer was liable to
plaintiff for false arrest, assault and battery, and
detention, handcuffs, officer's, charges, confinement,
night, punitive damages, constitutional right, awarding, malicious prosecution. The court also found that
defendant City was liable to plaintiff for maintaining a
hot spot, Post-Trial
policy and practice that resulted in the violation of
plaintiffs constitutional rights. As a result, plaintiff was
Case Summary awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

Procedural Posture LexisNexis® Headnotes


Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S.
& 1983 and New York state law seeking compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of her arrest on
charges of criminal possession of a forged instrument in Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
the second degree, forgery in the second degree, Actions > Scope
criminal simulation, and resisting arrest. • Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental
Freedoms > General Overview
Overview Constitutional Law > > Fundamental
Plaintiff file suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. S 1983 and Freedoms > Freedom of Speech > General Overview
New York state law seeking compensatory and punitive
damages arising out of her arrest on charges of criminal yl /LIN To properly plead a 42 U.S.C.S. 4 1983 claim,
possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a plaintiff must allege and prove (i) that her speech was
forgery in the second degree, criminal simulation, and protected by U.S. Cond. amend. 1, i.e., involved a
resisting arrest. The court found that defendant officer matter of public concern, and (ii) that there was adverse
was liable to plaintiff for false arrest, assault and battery, government action taken in retaliation for the exercise of
and malicious prosecution. The court also found that such speech. Whether speech is a matter of public
defendant City was liable to plaintiff for maintaining a concern is a question of law to be determined by

Eric Sanders
Page 2 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **1

examining the content, form, and context of a given Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Search &
statement, as revealed by the record. Seizure > Probable Cause
Torts > Intentional Torts > False Arrest > Elements
Torts > Intentional Torts > False Imprisonment > General
Overview
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
Actions > General Overview
At difid A 42 U.S.C.S. 6 1983 claim for false arrest
Civil Rights Law > > Elements > Color of State rests on the U.S. Const amend. IV right of an individual
Law > General Overview to be free from unreasonable seizures, including arrest
Civil Rights Law > > Section 1983 without probable cause. To establish a claim for false
Actions > Scope > Government Actions arrest under federal or New York law, the plaintiff must
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983 show that (i) the defendant intended to confine the
Actions > Scope plaintiff, (ii) the plaintiff was conscious of the
confinement, (iii) the plaintiff did not consent to the
Governments > Legislation > Statutory Remedies & Rights confinement, and (iv) the confinement was not
otherwise privileged.
HN2A] 42 U.S.C.S. 6 1983 authorizes a party who
has been deprived of a federal right under the color of
state law to seek relief through an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. The Criminal Law & Procedure > Commencement of Criminal
statute creates no substantive rights, but provides Proceedings > Arrests > Probable Cause
remedies for deprivations of rights established
elsewhere. A 6 1983 claim has two essential elements: Criminal Law & Procedure > > Search
Warrants > Probable Cause > Particularity Requirement
(i) the defendant acted under color of state law; and (ii)
as a result of the defendant's actions, the plaintiff Criminal Law & Procedure > > Search
suffered a denial of her federal statutory rights, or her Warrants > Probable Cause > Personal Knowledge
constitutional rights or privileges. In order to satisfy the Torts > Intentional Torts > False Arrest > Defenses
second element, plaintiff must establish that defendants
acted either intentionally or recklessly; if defendants HAL] An arrest is justified, or otherwise privileged, if
acted merely negligently they cannot be held liable. there was probable cause,to arrest In general, probable
cause to arrest exists when the officers have knowledge
or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and
circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be
Actions > Scope
arrested has committed or is committing a crime.
si m* See 42 U.S.C.S. iS 1983.

Criminal Law & Procedure > > Theft & Related


Offenses > Forgery > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
Actions > Scope
HAMA] See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 170.10(3) (McKinney 1999).
MN* It is firmly established that a defendant in a 42
U.S.C.S. § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when
he abuses the position given to him by the state.
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Theft & Related
Offenses > Forgery > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Theft & Related
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983 Offenses > Forgery > Elements
Actions > Scope
HN81116] See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 170.20 (McKinney 1999).
Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Search &
Seizure > General Overview

Eric Sanders
Page 3 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **1

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Procedural
Offenses > Fraud > General Overview Due Process > Scope of Protection

HN9[L] See N.Y. C.P.L.R. 170.45 (McKinney 1999). HNIZA] U.S. Const. amend. XIV protects pretrial
detainees from punishment without due process.

Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal


Offenses > Miscellaneous Offenses > General Overview Constitutional Law > Substantive Due Process > Scope.
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Obstruction of Torts > Intentional Torts > False Imprisonment > General
Administration of Justice > Resisting Arrest > General Overview
Overview
MI O* The state assumes some responsibility for an
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Obstruction of
Administration of Justice > Resisting Arrest > Elements individual's safety and general well-being when it takes
a person into custody against his will. Under such
HN/O[i] Under New York law, a person is guilty of circumstances, it is the state's affirmative act of
resisting arrest when he intentionally prevents or restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own
attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from behalf—through incarceration, institutionalization, or
effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another other similar restraint of personal liberty—which is the
person. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205.30. Accordingly, an deprivation of liberty triggering the protections of the
unauthorized arrest will bar a charge of resisting arrest. Due Process Clause. The government is entitled to
restrain a detainee's freedom in order to effectuate .
detention, e.g., confining them to a facility and restricting
the detainee's movement, but such confinement may
Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Search & not rise to the level of "punishment." The fact that such
Seizure > General Overview detention interferes with the detainee's understandable
Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Search & desire to live as comfortably as possible and with as
Seizure > Scope of Protection little restraint as possible during confinement does not
convert the conditions or restrictions of detention into
Criminal Law & Procedure > Commencement of Criminal punishment
Proceedings > Arrests > Reasonable Force
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Seizure of
Persons
Constitutional Law > > Fundamental Rights > Procedural
Allegations of excessive force during arrest Due Process > Scope of Protection
should be analyzed under the U.S. Const. amend. IV Torts > Negligence > Gross.Negligence
guarantee against unreasonable seizures of the person,
and are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's HN141.1] In order to establish a constitutional violation
"reasonableness" standard rather than a substantive under the U.S. Const amend. XIV, a plaintiff must at a
due process standard. The inquiry is whether the minimum show that defendants exhibited grossly
officers' actions are objectively reasonable in light of the negligent conduct. The United States Court of Appeals
facts and circumstances confronting them, without for the Second Circuit has required a plaintiff to
regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The establish that the defendants had reason to know of
"reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be facts creating a high degree of risk of physical harm to
judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on plaintiff and deliberately acted or failed to act in
the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, conscious disregard or indifference to that risk.
and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact
that police officers are often forced to make split-second
decisions about the amount of force necessary in a
particular situation. CM Procedure > > Defenses, Demurrers &
Objections > Affirmative Defenses > Immunity
Civil Procedure > > Summary Judgment > Burdens of
Proof > General Overview

Eric Sanders
Page 4 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **1

Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local Overview
Officials > Customs & Policies
HN164] If an, arrest is determined to be unlawful, any
HN15(L] Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense use of force against a plaintiff may constitute an assault
that the defendants have the burden of raising in their and battery, regardless of whether the force would be
answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for deemed reasonable if applied during a lawful arrest
summary judgment It protects state officials from civil
liability—for damages when they perform discretionary
functions and their conduct does not violate any clearly
established federal statutory or constitutional rights of Governments > Courts > Court Personnel
which a reasonable person would have known. It is now Torts > Intentional Torts > Malicious Prosecution > General
far too late in our constitutional history to deny that a Overview
person has a clearly established right not to be arrested
Torts > > Malicious Prosecution > Elements > General
without probable cause. Overview

HN19[A] To establish a claim for malicious prosecution


under New York law, a plaintiff must show that (i) the
Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
Officials > Customs & Policies defendant initiated a prosecution against the plaintiff, (ii)
the defendant lacked probable cause to believe the
HN16[i] Even where the plaintiffs federal rights and proceeding could succeed, (iii) the
defendant acted with
terminated in the
the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly malice, and (iv) the prosecution was
established, the qualified immunity defense protects a plaintiff's favor.
government actor if ti was objectively reasonable for him
to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of the
challenged act. If an officer arrests the plaintiff without
Legal Ethics > Prosecutorial Conduct
probable cause, the officer is immune from suit if he can
show either that: (i) it was objectively reasonable for him Torts > Intentional Torts > Malicious Prosecution > General
to believe he had probable cause; or (ii) officers of Overview
reasonable competence could disagree whether Torts > > Malicious Prosecution > Elements > General
probable cause existed. The simple fact that a Overview
defendant acted in good faith is not enough to entitle
him to qualified immunity. Torts > > Malicious Prosecution > Elements > Malice
Torts > > Elements > Lack of Probable Cause > General
Overview
Torts > > Elements > Lack of Probable Cause > Evidence
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Crimes Against
Persons > Assault & Battery > General Overview
HN201,41 The malice that need be proven in a malicious
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Assault & Battery > Simple prosecution claim does not necessarily involve spite,
Offenses > General Overview hatred, malevolence, or a corrupt design; it is sufficiently
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Assault & Battery > Simple established by showing that the baseless suit was
Offenses > Elements instituted from any improper and wrongful motive.
Further, while the absence of probable cause may bear
Criminal Law & Procedure > > Assault & Battery > Simple
Offenses > Penalties
on the malice issue, the two remain independent
elements of a malicious prosecution action. Only where
HN17* An assault is an intentional placing of another probable cause to initiate a proceeding is so totally
person in fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact; lacking may malice reasonably be inferred.
a battery is intentional wrongful physical contact with
another person without consent.
Torts > Intentional Torts > Malicious Prosecution > General
Overview
Torts > Intentional Torts > False Imprisonment > General

Eric Sanders
Page 5 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEAS 516, **1

fiN21bilka While malicious prosecution concerns the establish that the municipality either authorized the
improper issuance of process, malicious abuse of employee to act in violation of the plaintiff's rights, or
process involves the improper use of process after it is was the "moving force" behind the violation.
regularly issued.

Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
Torts > Intentional Torts > Malicious Prosecution > General Officials > General Overview
Overview Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against

HN221L] Under New York law, a malicious abuse of HN2541 The requisite municipal custom or policy may
process claim lies against a defendant who (i) employs be established by reference to a single incident of
regularly issued legal process to compel performance or unconstitutional activity if plaintiff shows that (I) the
forbearance of some act, (ii) with intent to do harm policy itself is unconstitutional, and (ii) was the cause of
without excuse or justification, and (iii) in order to obtain the constitutional violation. At the very least there must
a collateral objective that is outside the legitimate ends be an affirmative link between the policy and the
of the process. particular constitutional violation alleged. Where the
alleged custom or policy is further removed from the
constitutional violation, the existence of the
unconstitutional policy must be separately proved. Also,
Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
where the policy is itself not unconstitutional,
Officials > General Overview
considerably more proof than the single incident alone
Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against will be necessary in every case to establish both the
Governments > Local Governments > Employees & requisite fault on the part of the municipality, and the
Officials causal connection between the policy and the
constitutional deprivation.
HN23fak] The mere fact that an officer, employee, or
agent of a municipality deprived a plaintiff of a federal
right is not itself a sufficient basis for holding the
municipality liable to the plaintiff. Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
Officials > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > > Section 1983
Actions > Scope > Government Actions
Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
Officials > General Overview Civil Rights Law > > Scope > Law Enforcement
Officials > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > > Section 1983
Actions > Scope > Government Actions Governments > Courts > Court Personnel

Governments > Local Governments > Claims By & Against Governments > Local Governments > Police Power

Governments > Local Governments > Employees & NNW* The inadequacy of police training may
Officials constitute 42 U.S.C.S. $1983 liability where the failure
to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights
HN24f1G] In order to establish the liability of a
of persons with whom police come into contact.
municipality in an action under 42 U.S.C.S. 4 1983 for
the unconstitutional acts by a municipal employee below
the policymaking level, a plaintiff must establish that the
violation of her constitutional rights resulted from a Civil Rights Law > > Immunity From Liability > Local
municipal custom or policy, that is, evidence that the Officials > General Overview
municipality itself is at fault. This "official-policy"
requirement is intended to distinguish acts of the HN271A] The presence of deliberate indifference in a
municipality from acts of its employees, so that failure to train case hinges on (i) whether the training
municipal liability is limited to conduct for which the program is adequate, (ii) whether the alleged
municipality is actually responsible. The plaintiff must inadequate training can Justifiably be said to represent

Eric Sanders
Page 6 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **1

"city policy," and (iii) whether there is a close causal of all the evidence in the case. Unlike pecuniary losses,
connection between the alleged failure to train and these damages are, by their nature, not easily translated
violation of constitutional rights. into a dollar amount Consequently, the law does not
provide a precise formula by which pain and suffering
and emotional distress may be properly measured and
reduced to monetary value.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Preliminary
Proceedings > Arraignments > Procedural Matters
Torts > Remedies > Damages
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Damages > Punitive
HIVINAI The law provides that damages may be Damages
awarded for false arrest only from the period from initial Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983
custody through arraignment, and damages may be Actions > Scope
awarded for malicious prosecution for injuries suffered Criminal Law & Procedure > > Acts & Mental
following arraignment. States > Mens Rea > Willfulness
Torts > > Types of Damages > Punitive
Damages > General Overview
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Section 1983 Torts > > Types of Damages > Punitive
Actions > Scope Damages > Aggravating Circumstances

HN294,1 When 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 plaintiffs seek HN32[Jc] The purpose of punitive damages is to punish
damages for violations of constitutional rights, the level the defendant for his willful or malicious conduct and to
of damages is ordinarily determined according to deter others from similar behavior. Punitive damages
principles derived from the common law of torts. are available in 42 U.S.C.S. 4 1983 cases, but only
when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated
by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or
callous indifference to the federally protected rights of
Torts > > Types of Damages > Compensatory others. Punitive damages are not available from a
Damages > General Overview municipality.
HN301iki Compensatory damages are damages
grounded in determinations of plaintiffs actual losses
caused by the deprivation of her constitutional rights Civil Procedure > Remedies > Damages > General
and may include not only out-of-pocket loss and other Overview
monetary harms, but also such injuries as impairment of
reputation personal humiliation, and mental anguish and Mil Procedure > Remedies > Damages > Punitive
suffering. Damages
Torts > Remedies > Damages > General Overview
Torts > > Types of Damages > Punitive
Damages > General Overview
Torts > > Types of Losses > Pain & Suffering > General
Overview Torts > > Punitive Damages > Measurement of
Damages > General Overview
Torts > > Pain & Suffering > Emotional
Distress > General Overview Torts > > Punitive Damages > Measurement of
Damages > Judicial Review
Torts > > Pain & Suffering > Emotional Distress > Award
Calculations
HN334] In determining the amount of punitive
Torts > > Pain & Suffering > Emotional damages, the United States Supreme Court has
Distress > Evidence recently identified three "guideposts" that bear on the
reasonableness of such awards, at least the outer limits
HN311* The measure of damages for pain and imposed by the Due Process Clause, which have
suffering or emotional distress is the fair and reasonable subsequently been relied on by the United States Court
compensation to be fixed by the trier of fact in the light

Eric Sanders
Page 7 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *274; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **1

of Appeals for the Second Circuit in reviewing punitive the second degree, forgery in the second degree,
damages awards. These guideposts are: (1) the degree criminal simulation, and resisting arrest. Specifically,
plaintiff asserted claims against the City of New York,
of reprehensibility of the tortious conduct, (2) the ratio of
punitive damages to compensatory damages, and (3) former Police Commissioner Howard Safir ("Safir"),
the difference between this remedy and the civil Police Officer Charles Daskalakis ("Daskalakis"), and
penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Police Officers "A", "B", and "C" pursuant to (i) Section
The ultimate goal is to make certain that the punitive 1983 for violations of her constitutional rights arising out
damages are reasonable in their amount and rational in of her allegedly false arrest and purported abuse while
light of their purpose to punish what has occurred and to in custody, and (ii) New York state law for false arrest
deter its repetition. and imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious
prosecution, malicious abuse of process, prima facie
tort, negligence and gross negligence. By Memorandum
Order dated October 19, 2000, the Court denied
CivilRights Law > > Procedural Matters > Costs & plaintiffs motion for partial 1**2j summary judgment, but
Attorney Fees > Statutory Attorney Fee Awards granted that portion of plaintiff's motion requesting leave
Civil Rights Law > Protection of Rights > Seddon 1983 to amend the Complaint to exclude defendants Safir and
Actions > Scope Police Officers "A", "B", and "C". Following entry of a
Torts > > Types of Damages > Costs & Attorney Joint Pretrial Order dated August 28, 2000, the Court
Fees > General Overview conducted a bench trial on December 12, 13 and 14,
2000. This Opinion constitutes the Courts findings of
HN34* In Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
1871, 42 U.S.C.S. 4 1988(b), Congress provided that 52(a).
the court, in its discretion, may allow a prevailing party
in a 42 U.S.C.S. S 1983 action to recover attorneys fees FINDINGS OF FACT
as an element of costs.
I. Plaintiff's Background and Her Relationship to the
Counsel: For STANISLAWA SULKOWSKA, plaintiff: Oasis Bar, its Ownership, and its Liquor License
John W. Cobb, Cobb & Cobb, Tuxedo, NY.
Plaintiff is a 75-year old woman residing in New York
County. Born in Poland in 1925, she earned a master's
For THE CITY OF NEW YORK, HOWARD SAFIR,
degree in economics from a Polish university, married,
defendants: Michael Oliver Hueston, Corporation
and had two daughters. (Tr. 354, 356, 359, 390.) She
Counsel City of NY, New York, NY.
also worked as economic director for a construction
For CHARLES DASKALAKIS, defendant: Michael D. company. (Tr. 390.) In 1971, she fled then-Communist
Hess, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, New York, Poland with her daughters, traveling to Germany and, in
NY. 1973, to the United States. (Tr. 355-58; Plaintiff's Brief
Life Story, Pl. Ex. 23.) According to plaintiff, her
Judges: ALLEN G. SCHWARTZ, U.S.D.J. husband, who remained in Poland when she departed,
was subject to aggressive questioning and torture
Opinion by: ALLEN G. SCHWARTZ concerning the whereabouts of his family. (Tr. .358,
r3] 383; Pl. Ex. 23.) Plaintiff later learned in the 1980s
Opinion that her husband, whom she had hoped would join her
in the United States if and when the Communist
government permitted him to leave, had been
p279] OPINION AND ORDER "murdered" in Poland, which caused plaintiff to suffer
depression and related symptoms. (Tr. 291, 382-83;
ALLEN G. SCHWARTZ, DISTRICT JUDGE: Def. Exs. B-12, B-13.)
Plaintiff Stanislawa Sulkowska ("plaintiff) commenced [*28O] When she arrived in the United States, plaintiff
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section, spoke no English, and initially worked as a cleaning
1983') and New York state law seeking compensatory woman in an office building in Manhattan. (Tr. 358-59;
and punitive damages arising out of her arrest on Pl. Ex. 23.) With money she saved, plaintiff went into
charges of criminal possession of a forged instrument in business for herself, opening a candy store in Queens,

Eric Sanders
Page 8 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *280; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **3

which she operated for two years, concurrently with her the corporation. (Tr. 229-31, 253; Def. Ex. U.) After
job as a cleaning woman. (Tr. 360-61, 391.) Following being fired, Aharon refused to leave his job, continued
the sale of the candy store, plaintiff operated a Polish to sell liquor from the bar, and caused substantial
restaurant called the Baltic Restaurant, which had physical damage to the premises. (Tr. 231; Def. Ex. K-
locations both in Manhattan and in Queens. (Tr. 361-63, 1.)
391-92.) Following the closing of that restaurant, plaintiff
operated a bar on First Avenue in Manhattan called the On March 2, 1998, because [**61 of Aharon's activity,
Downtown Beirut bar, or "DBB." (Tr. 393.) Barbara placed the liquor license in the custody of the
New York State Liquor Authority ("SIN) for
In 1986, plaintiff and her daughters formed a corporation safekeeping. 3 (Tr. 231, 252; Def. Exs. U, SS.)
called New Stafford Restaurant, Inc. ("New Stafford") I However, Barbara subsequently learned that Aharon
to serve as owner of a liquor license and lease for a had removed the license from safekeeping at the SLA
bar r41 establishment called the Oasis ("Oasis"). (Tr. and had reopened the bar without Barbara's consent. 4
at 365, 396.) That same year, they obtained a liquor (Tr. 231, 254.) On April 1, 1998, at Barbara's request,
license in the corporation's name. (Tr. 242, 394.) The an SLA inspector accompanied by r2811 a police
Oasis first was located in Ozone Park, Queens and then officer of the 9th Precinct of the New York Police
on Houston Street in Manhattan. (Tr. 399, Def. Ex NN.) Department ("NYPD") went to the Oasis and took
The bar apparently was closed during 1992 and 1993; custody of the license. (Tr. 22, 232, 254.) Barbara, who
however, in 1994, plaintiff and her family found a new was produced by plaintiff, testified that she went to
location, and the Oasis reopened at 121 St. Mark's retrieve the original license from safekeeping in late
Place in Manhattan. 2 (Tr. 365, 396, 399-400.) April 1998, but the license had been misplaced. (Tr.
239.) She requested a duplicate license and later
rai At its inception, plaintiff owned 60 percent of the received a letter from the SLA dated April 24, 1998 (the
New Stafford, and each of her daughters owned 20 '20-day letter") that served as a valid license until the
percent. (Tr. 246; Def. Ex 00.) After the bar located on original license was replaced. 5 rim (Tr. 239, Pl. Ex. 19;
Houston Street was closed in 1992, plaintiff and her Def. Ex. BB.) Barbara further testified that she retrieved
daughter Bozina resigned from the corporation, leaving the new liquor license from the SLA on an unspecified
her daughter Barbara with 100 percent ownership of date in early June 1998. 6 (Tr. 239-40.) She testified that
New Statford and the Oasis. (Tr. 248-49, 262-63, 401-
02; Def. Ex L.) However, the bar's liquor license
continued to remain in the corporation's name, was the
license used by the Oasis when it opened in 1994, and 3According to the testimony of Philip Hachmeyer
was subsequently renewed, for three years, in 1996. ("Hachmeyer"), a beverage control investigator for the SLA
(Tr. 89, 400; Pl. Ex 20.) Although plaintiff had no called by plaintiff, a licensee may place a license in
safekeeping to protect the license while the licensee is away
ownership interest in the bar after it moved to St. Mark's or performing construction on the premises in question for an
Place, she continued to assist in its operation. She was extended period of time. (Tr. 19.)
frequently on the premises and at times performed
managerial duties. (Tr. 36, 225.) Barbara hired a 4Hachmeyer testified that "a mistake had been made at the
manager, Avi Aharon ("Aharon"), in early 1997; but fired Uquor Authority," by which the license had been returned to
someone other than the licensee of record. (Tr. 21.)
him after one year because he was stealing money from
5The letter was addressed to the corporate licensee, and
stated that "the license application [of licensee] has been
1The first liquor license obtained by plaintiff stated that the approved as of this date." The letter further stated that
name of the corporation was New "Stafford." However, the "permission to purchase, stock and sell alcoholic beverages is
name of the corporation as reflected in the recent records of granted." Finally, the letter stated: "This letter will cease to be
the New York State Uquor Authority is New "Stratford." (Tr. 18, effective upon the issuance of the license itself or 20 days
56-57; Def. Exs. BB, CC, FF, II, JJ, PP, NN, T, Z, 1-1.) from the date hereof, whichever is first to occur." (Pl. Ex. 19.)
2 From 1994 to 1998, plaintiff and her daughters changed the 6 Barbara stated she retrieved the new license approximately
signs on the bar to reflect both the names "DBB-2" and the two weeks after the arrival of the 20-day letter, and that the
"Oasis." (Tr. 249-51, 402.). During a short period of time when license was present in the bar on June 3, 4, 12, and 13, 1998.
the bar had an external manager, the bar may also have done (Tr. 239, 257-58, 260, 270.) Possibly because the license had
business as the "Zeenu Lounge." (Def. Ex. U.) Between the been misplaced by SLA, SLA records did not indicate that the
incidents that led to this action and the date of this Opinion, license had been removed from safekeeping after April 1,
the bar has been sold. (Tr. 236.) 1998. (Ir. 22, 68, 144, 261-62.)
Eric Sanders
Page 9 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *281; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEAS 516, **8

she hung the original liquor license in the Oasis' "service "real problem," the goal is to close them down or expel
area, to " an enclosed space in back of the bar, them from the community. (Tr. 468.)
because of concerns that Aharon might try to remove it.
(Tr. 234, 241, 258.) All parties agreed at trial that the The officers of the Conditions Unit never act on their
original license was at the premises when plaintiff was own with respect to designated ("282] "hot spots";
arrested there in the early morning of June 13, 1998. 7 rather, they act in response to two types of directions.
(Tr. at 8, 14, 148, 431.) (Tr. 467.) The first, and most common, type of direction
is a "a call over the radio, or . . . at the station house
II. NYPD Conditions Unit and MARCHS Task Force directing [officers] to a certain location." (Tr. 466-67,
468.) The second type of direction is a call to action as
At all times relevant to the instant action, defendant part of a joint task force formed by the Mayor's office
Charles Daskalakis was employed by the NYPD, and named the Multi-Agency Response to Community Hot
was working out of the Department's 9th Precinct as a Spots, or "MARCHS." (Tr. 32, 456, 469-70.) The
member of a specially formed unit known as the Street MARCHS Task Force is comprised of representatives
Conditions, or Conditions, Unit (the "Conditions Unit"). from various New York City (*it'll] agencies such as the
8 riff) (Tr. 114, 465.) [**9] The Conditions Unit was Buildings Department, Consumer Affairs Department,
formed by the NYPD as part of the City's efforts to Health Department and Environmental Protection
remove so-called undesirable elements and conditions Department, working together with numerous police and
that had the effect of offending the community at large. 9 vice officers and the SLA. (Tr. 30-31, 470.) The
Each police precinct apparently has officers assigned to MARCHS Task Force specifically focuses on
Conditions. The premises targeted by the 9th Precinct's establishments that have or should have a liquor
Conditions Unit are "cabaret" locations, meaning "clubs, license, (Tr. 31), and examines the conditions of such
bars, anywhere there was some kind of liquor sold or establishments, including general cleanliness, food
any kind of dancing." (Tr. 199.) Officer Rosado, who safety, and fire safety. (Tr. 470.) The Task Force works
was called as a witness by defendants, testified that precinct-by-precinct, on the basis of the same lists of
certain premises are identified as community "hot spots" community "hot spots" or targets as those held by the
and that the NYPD has a list of such "hot spots." (Tr. Conditions Units alone, lists which were drawn up by the
467.) The "hot spots" are locations which have been the Commanding Officers of each local precinct. (Tr. 29-30,
subject of complaints or are premises not performing in 71, 470; Def. Ex. AA.)
ways the City deems to be satisfactory, in terms of
conduct visits related to
conditions, in the community. (Tr. 467.) If a location is a The Conditions Units frequently
a premises' liquor license, so-called "SLA
investigations." On investigations triggered by a radio
call, the Unit responds with the members of their team
7VVhen asked by the Court to stipulate to this point, however,
from the precinct, which for the 9th Precinct consisted of
defendants' counsel refused, and notwithstanding the
or six officers. (Tr. 200-01.) Some or all of the
undisputed fact that the original license was on the premises five
dressed in
and was seized by the NYPD on the date at issue, stated that officers travel to the designated location,
it was not clear "whether or not the license was in fact still in uniform or in plain clothes. For a MARCHS visit, which
safekeeping on the date of the incident." (Tr. 184.) could comprise up to 30 or 40 individuals, [**12] the
Units provide a uniformed police presence for the
anis Unit, as it operated out of the 9th Precinct, was also representatives of other agencies. (Tr. 30, 469.)
known as the "Conditions Team" or "Midnight Community
Policing Unit (CPU)." (Tr. 114, 465.) In other precincts, similar Hachmeyer, a member of the Task Force, testified that
units were known as "Cabaret Units." (Tr. 114.)
"MARCHS" occur every weekend in all boroughs. (Tr.
9Police Officer Jose Rosado ("Rosado") testified that the 34.) Requests to participate originate in the Deputy
Conditions Unit was formed to address offensive conditions. Mayor's office, which determines when and where
He stated as follows: participants should congregate. (Tr. 32.) 'Various
"Officer Rosado: We've had, for a time we had peddler agencies would rendezvous at the [designated] local
conditions, unlicensed general vendors, squeegee. precinct . . . on Friday or Saturday night, [have] a
Things of that nature. Beer drinking. Urinating In public. briefing schedule that lasts until about midnight, and
Like I said loitering for prostitution. These are like then I] go out in the field." (Tr. 31.) The participants go
basically, quality of life. Things that would come up. And out on the MARCH in police vehicles, vans, and other
our commanding officer would have us arrest them." (Tr. agency vehicles to the various listed "target locations,"
465.)

Eric Sanders
Page 10 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *282; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **12

which are "kept secret until the evening of the evening, the 9th Precinct's Ctinditions Unit was directed
operation," and are not disclosed in advance to the to conduct an SLA investigation at the Oasis. (Tr. 93-94,
proprietors of the businesses. (Tr. 32, 33, 469; Def. Ex. 115.) Daskalakis and the Sergeant Timothy Ferguson
M.) Upon arrival, the various agency personnel ("Ferguson") responded, and later requested backup
conduct several investigations, concerning, for example, from two other members of the Unit, Officers Luis
food quality, building structure, and liquor stock, for Fernandez and Michelle Rodriguez, who joined them at
approximately 45 minutes to one hour. (Tr. 33.) Such the scene. (Tr. 202.) Daskalakis, who was called as a
personnel issue summonses to those target premises witness by plaintiff, testified that the purpose of their visit
that fail to conform with applicable regulations. (Def. Ex. to the Oasis was to ascertain whether the bar "required
M.) licensing by the [SLA]," and if so, whether it was
licensed and adhered to SLA rules and regulations. (Tr.
III. Closing r131 of the Oasis Bar and Plaintiffs 100.)
Arrest
rya Arriving in plain clothes around midnight, (Tr.
From 1994 to June 12, 1998, the date of the incident 372), Daskalakis and Ferguson identified themselves to
that is the subject of this action, the Oasis Bar had been the bartender and asked to see the bar's liquor license.
cited by the SLA for certain minor violations. In (Tr. 93, 102, 104.) The bartender presented them with a
particular, in November 1994, the bar was charged with color photocopy of the license that was kept in a frame
selling alcohol to a minor, (Tr. 28, 228-29), and at some near the cash register located behind the bar. (Tr. 104,
point thereafter the bar was charged with a noise 105, 109, 175.) Daskalakis then asked if the owner was
violation. (Tr. 210-11, 229.) On the early mornings of present and the bartender motioned towards plaintiff
June 4 and 6, 1998, respectively, the Oasis was issued who was sitting at the end of the bar. (Tr. 112). After
summonses for failure to display a liquor license and for being informed of the officers' presence, plaintiff
permitting consumption of alcohol without a liquor approached Daskalakis and asked what he wanted. (Tr.
license. On the first visit, when the officers asked to see 113.) The officer stated that he was there to conduct an
the bar's liquor license, they were shown the 20-day SLA investigation, (Tr. 124), and the following exchange
letter, which had expired. They subsequently arrested ensued:
individuals and removed the bar's liquor inventory from Q: What did she [plaintiff] say?
the premises, effectively closing the bar down. (Tr. 117- N. "What do you want?"
18, 236-37, 258-61; Pl. Ex. 14; Def. Ex. Z.) No details Q: What did you say?
concerning the specific events of the second visit were A I said "I need to see your liquor license."
presented at trial. Further, on both nights, the original (Tr. 113)
license, r2831 as well as the photocopy, were
purportedly on the premises. 10 (Tr. 260, 270.) Plaintiff, who had arrived in the United States at age 48
and converses in English with considerable difficulty, 12
rm14] By the night of June 12, 1998, the Oasis had apparently understood that Daskalakis wished to see
clearly been designated by the 9th Precinct as a whether the bar had a liquor license, a logical inference.
community "hot spot." 11 (Tr. 410/ 469.) On that She therefore stated, referring to the photocopy, that
"this is my liquor license. ['mitt] " (Tr. 124, 408.)
Daskalakis testified that he stated that he was being
I° Defendants maintain that the SLA license was in shown a copy and not the original, and that plaintiff
safekeeping on June 4, 1998, and presented an internal SLA three times repeated her statement that the document
memorandum in support of their position. (Tr. 259-63; Def. Ex. he had in his hand was "my liquor license." (Tr. 124.)
Z; Def. Post-Trial Mem. at 20 & n.4.) However, as noted supra, According to the officer, at that point, he went to his
the SLA's records with regard to the location of the original vehicle to obtain his summons book and write out a
liquor license after April 1, 1998 are inconclusive, such that the
summons for operating a bar without a liquor license,
SLA memorandum has little value with regard to the location
of the license. and for failure to display a liquor license. (Tr. 125, 135.)
11It should be noted that the Oasis was subject to a MARCHS
Task Force visit in November 1999, during which certain placed on a list of "hot spots" by June 13, 1998. (Tr. 469.)
summonses were issued. (Tr. 36-37, 447, 452-53; Def. Ex. 12 Plaintiff also has trouble writing in English. She testified that
AA.) While Rosado testified that, to his knowledge; the Oasis she first wrote a letter that was sent to the Court in Polish, and
was not on the list for MARCHS on any date other than the that the letter was translated into English by a typing service.
November 1999 date, he affirmed that the Oasis had been (Tr. 428; Pl. Ex. 22.)

Eric Sanders
Page 11 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *283; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **16

Plaintiff followed him, and again asserted that she had arrested plaintiff and charged her with two felonies,
given him "her liquor license." (Tr. 125.) When the forgery in the second degree and possession of a
officer finally asked for "the original," plaintiff told the forged (**17] instrument in the second degree.
officer that she indeed had another license, led Daskalakis also charged her with the misdemeanor of
Daskalakis back into the bar, produced the original criminal simulation. See New York Penal Law ("NYPL")
license, and gave it to the officer. 13 rim (Tr. 126-27, §§ 170.10(3), 170.25, 170.45(2). Daskalakis testified
374.) 1184] Although the parties dispute where the that he believed that the Oasis had no valid license and
original license was located on the premises, 14 it is that plaintiff had intended to deceive or defraud him by
undisputed that Daskalakis then had in his hand both producing the original license after insisting that the
the photocopy and the original. (Tr. 130, 432.) At that photocopy "is the license." (Tr. 135, 139.) Further, in the
point, without inquiring of the SLA as to whether the course of placing plaintiff under arrest, Daskalakis found
license was valid, 15 1**191 (Tr. 131, 145-46), Daskalakis her resisting the . second handcuff. (Tr. 165.)
Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiffs expressions of
anger and frustration were understandable and, indeed,
13 Daskalakis testified that even after he told plaintiff that the
justified under the circumstances, Daskalakis also
document he was being shown was a copy, plaintiff insisted charged her with resisting arrest fa
that it was the original. (Tr. 133, 134, 178.) The Court finds
that this testimony is not credible. At no time did plaintiff state Upon plaintiffs arrest, Daskalakis seized both the
to Daskalakis that the copy was "the original" or use the word original and the copy of the Oasis' liquor license. (Tr.
"original." (Tr. 139-40.) Rather, in response to the officer's 144.) The officers then closed down the bar, vacating it
demand for evidence of a liquor license, plaintiff merely
asserted that she had given him "the license." (Tr. 137.)
of its patrons and, as was "standard procedure," seizing
Moreover, when Daskalakis finally asked "Do you have the its liquor stock. (1"r. 158, 162-63, 173; Def. Exs. N-1 to
original?", (Tr. 126), plaintiff gave him the original license; and N-4; Affidavit of Stanislawa Sulkowska in Support of
plaintiff testified at trial that she did not consider the photocopy Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Def. Ex. LLL,
she had presented to be the original license. (Tr. 434.) P 14; Plaintiffs Brief Life Story, Def. Ex. G at 1, 3.)
Further, Daskalalds himself acknowledged, contrary to his Daskalakis testified that both the original license and the
previous testimony, that once he had the original, it was clear liquor inventory were removed because he believed that
that plaintiff had not offered the photocopy as that original. (Tr. the premises was not licensed. (Tr. 144, 157.) He came
133.) to this judgment not because he had checked with the
14 Both plaintiff and Barbara testified that the original license SLA as to the license's validity, but "because the
was hinging on the wall in the service area at the rear of the premises had been open for business as a
bar. (Tr. 234, 374, 436-37.) Daskalakis testified that plaintiff licensed r20] premise, and had been issued
produced the original license from a room behind the bar, summonses numerous times for matters regarding the
accessed via a closed door. (Tr. 129.) However, Daskalakis license." (Tr. 157, 161.) Daskalakis also testified that he
also acknowledged that there was little light in the bar, and had been told by two other members of his r 285]
there was "no light" in the room from which plaintiff retrieved Conditions Unit that the license had been revoked. (Tr.
the original license. (Tr. 170.) 150-51, 155.) To this date, neither the licenses nor the
15VVhether a license Is valid, or In force and effect, according liquor have ever been returned to the Oasis. 17 (Tr. 161,
to the testimony of James Pizzi of the SLA, called by plaintiff, 433.)
is a simple fact to determine. He testified as follows:
"Q. When a precinct or some authorized person calls you
Testimony at trial established that the Oasis' liquor
to ask about the status of a liquor license, how long does
it take you to determine what the status is?
A. Something like that, a few minutes."
A. It varies with the computer and looking for the file and
getting the information. But it doesn't take long. (Tr. 81.)
L.. 16 Daskalakis also charged plaintiff with two violations of the
O. So it is a computer-related search? When they call
you to ask — should somebody call you to ask about the New York Alcoholic Beverage Control Law ("ABC Law"), for (I)
status of a license, you then have access to computer failure to display a liquor license, and (ii) permitting
records, is that correct? consumption without a liquor license, the same offenses for
which the bar had been issued summonses on June 4 and 6,
A Yes. 1998, respectively. (Tr. 150-51, 179, 182.)
0. To access the records on the computer would take 17The original license was destroyed by the NYPD's Property
how long? Couple of minutes, five minutes, an hour? Clerk's Office on July 21, 1999. (Def. Ex. M.)

Eric Sanders
Page 12 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *285; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **20

license was valid at the time of plaintiffs arrest and has ambulance to Bellevue Hospital Center ("Bellevue")
never been suspended, revoked, or canceled. The SLA where, after seeing a triage nurse, she was referred to
file offered in evidence by defendants did not indicate a the psychiatric ward, cleared, and released back into
suspension, revocation, or cancellation, and Hachmeyer Daskalakis' custody. (Tr. 190-92, 379, 493; Def. Exs. B-
testified that careful review of the file would have 1, B-2.) Still handcuffed, 20 plaintiff was transported
indicated such changes. (Tr. 22.) Barbara also testified back to the 9th Precinct, where she was kept in the
that the liquor license was valid and in effect at all holding cell for MI several hours. (Tr. 192, 379-80.)
relevant times. (Tr. 234, 270.) Further, a letter issued by Thereafter, plaintiff was transferred to central booking,
the State of New York Division of Alcoholic 21 arraigned, and then finally released from custody in
Beverage r211 Control dated June 15, 1998 stated that the afternoon of June 13, 1998. (Tr. 192, 411; Def. Ex.
the "licensee is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages at LLL P 19.) On September 2, 1998, all charges against
the referenced address [i.e. 121 Saint Mark's Place]. plaintiff were dismissed in the Criminal Court of the City
The license was renewed on May 1, 1996." (Pl. Ex. 20.) of New York upon the motion of the District Attorney.
Pizzi testified that this letter indicated that the licensee (Pl. Ex. 22; Tr. 195-96.) [*288] On June 11, 1999,
had a "three-yea?' license which was valid until May 1, plaintiff filed the instant action.
1999. (Tr. 89.) Moreover, the license itself states on its
face that it expires on April 30, 1999. (Def. Ex. I-1.) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Defendants never called either of the two officerawhom
Daskalakis stated had told him that they believed that I. Section 1983 Claims 22
the Oasis did not have a valid license. Thus, all of the
evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, the SLA
file and the June 15, 1998 letter, strongly supports
plaintiff's contention that the liquor license was valid and 2° Plaintiff testified that she was humiliated by being in
in effect on June 12 and 13, 1998, and the Court so handcuffs while present at the hospital. (Tr. 378-79.)
finds. 18 21 Plaintiff testified that at central booking, she suffered further
humiliation from being placed in a cell with other, younger
p22] IV. Plaintiffs Confinement, Release, and detainees, who insulted her. (Tr. 379-80.)
Psychological Injury
22 Plaintiff claims that Officer Daskalakis deprived her of her
After she was arrested, plaintiff was forcibly removed First Amendment rights by arresting her for protesting his
from the premises and transported in a police vehicle to unlawful seizure of the Oasis' liquor license. (Amend. Compl.
the 9th Precinct. 18 (Tr. 174.) While in custody at the 9th PP 10, 11, 22.) "Adverse government action taken in
Precinct, she was handcuffed to the bars of the holding retaliation for the exercise of protected speech violates the
cell, which plaintiff said caused soreness to her hands. First Amendment" Barber v. Winn, 1997 U.S. Dist. • LEXIS
(Tr. 188, 378.) After an extended period of time, plaintiff 4018. *10. No. 95 CV 1030. 1997 WL 151999. at *3 (N.D.N.Y.
who suffered from asthma, complained that she "felt 1997) (citing Mozzochi v. Borden. 959 F.2d 1174, 1179 (2d
Cir. 1992)). HN/['] To properly plead such a claim, a plaintiff
very bad." (Tr. 188, 378, 410.) She testified that her
must allege and prove (I) that her speech was protected by the
initial requests for water and for her asthma medication,
Mist Amendment, i.e., involved a matter of public concern,
which had been confiscated with her other belongings, and (ii) that there was adverse government action taken in
went unanswered. (Tr. 412-13; Def. Ex. LLL P 15.) At a retaliation for the exercise of such speech. See, e.g., Brady v.
certain point, Daskalakis reported plaintiffs illness and Town of Colchester. 863 F.2d 205. 217 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing
summoned an emergency medical team. (Tr. 188-90.) Mount Healthy v. Doyle. 429 U.S. 274. 287. 50 L Ed. 2d 471,
Escorted by Daskalakis, plaintiff was transported by 97 S. Ct. 568 (1977)). Whether speech is a matter of public
concern is a question of law to be determined by examining
the "content form, and context of a given statement, as
revealed by the record." Sheppard v. Beerman. 18 F.3d 147.
18Despite clear evidence, from defendants' own records and
151 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Connick v. Myers. 461 U.S. 138.
the testimony of multiple witnesses, that the Oasis' liquor
75 L. Ed. 2d 708. 103 S. Ct. 1684 (1983)). In this case,
license was in force and effect at the time of plaintiffs arrest,
defendants' counsel refused to stipulate to this point at trial. plaintiffs alleged speech, which consisted of her objection to
(Tr. 183-85.) the seizure of her bar's liquor license, is not a matter of public
concern, and even assuming it was such, plaintiff failed to
19 Plaintiff asserted that she was humiliated as a result of being establish that she was arrested in retaliation for such
arrested and led out of the bar in the presence of patrons. (Tr. comments. Accordingly, the Court decline.s to find a violation
318; Def. Ex. LLL P 14; Def. Ex. G at 1.) of plaintiffs First Amendment right to free speech.

Eric Sanders
Page 13 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *286; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **23

("241 Myer) focus on the second element.

Section 1983 authorizes a party who has been deprived Man A. Fourth Amendment Claims
of a federal right under the color of state law to seek
relief through "an action at law, suit in equity, or other Plaintiff asserts that Daskalakis violated her Fourth
proper proceeding for redress." See City of Monterey v. Amendment rights because he arrested her without
Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707. probable cause, and used unconstitutionally excessive
143 L. Ed. 2d 882, 119 S. Ct 1624 (1999). The statute force on her during the arrest. (Amend. Compl. P 22.)
creates no substantive rights, but "provides remedies for Specifically, she alleges that "in response to her protest
deprivations of rights established elsewhere." 23 and without probable cause, she was arrested,
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle. 471 U.S. 808. 816 85 L Ed. 2d manhandled, assaulted and battered, dragged from the
791. 105 S. Ct. 2427 (1985) (plurality opinion). A premises in handcuffs, [and] handcuffed to the bars of a
Section 1983 claim has two essential elements: (i) the holding cell at the 9th Precinct," and challenges each of
defendant acted under color of state law; and (ii) as a the charges that were brought against her. (Id. PP 11,
result of the defendant's actions, the plaintiff suffered a 15.)
denial of her federal statutory rights, or her constitutional
rights or privileges. See Annis v. County of Westchester. 1. False Arrest
136 F.3d 239. 245 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). In
"HNO[] A Section 1983 claim for false arrest rest[s]
order to satisfy the second element, plaintiff must
on r27] the Fourth Amendment right of an individual to
establish that defendants acted either intentionally or
be free from unreasonable seizures, including arrest
recklessly; if defendants acted merely negligently they
without probable cause." Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845.
cannot be held liable. See Dewick v. Mae of Penn
852 (2d Cir. 1996). To establish a claim for false arrest
Van, 972 F. SUDO. 166. 169 (W.D.N.Y. 1997). r- 251
under federal or New York law, the plaintiff must show
that "'(i) the defendant intended to confine [the plaintiff],
In this case, the first element is undisputed, because the
actions about which plaintiff complains were committed (ii) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (iii)
by Officer Daskalakis, who, as a police officer in the the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (iv)
course of duty, clearly acted under color of state law. the confinement was not otherwise privileged.'" Singer
See West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42. 49-50. 101 L Ed. 2d v. Fulton County Sheriff. 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 1995)
40. 108 S. Ct. 2250 (1988) (citing Monroe v. Pape. 365 (citation omitted). SI AT] An arrest is justified, or
U.S. 1E, 172, 81 S. Ct. 473. 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961)) otherwise privileged, if there was probable cause to
C'HN4[T] It is firmly established that a defendant in a arrest. See Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5. 13 (2d Cir.
ME suit acts under color (261 of state law when he 1998) (stating that "otherwise privileged" confinement
abuses the position given to him by the State."); Parratt includes arrest with probable cause); Weyant supra,
v. Taylor. 451 U.S. 527. 535-36, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420, 101 101 F.3d at 852 ("The existence of probable cause to
S. Ct. 1908 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, arrest constitutes justification and is a complete defense
Daniels v. Williams. 474 U.S. 327. 88 L Ed. 2d 662. 106 to an action for false arrest, whether that action is
S. Ct. 662 (1986) (finding that a public employee acts brought under state law or under § 1983.") (citation and
under color of state law while acting in his official internal quotations omitted). "In general, probable cause
capacity or while exercising his responsibilities pursuant to arrest exists when Mei the officers have knowledge
to state law). The following discussion, therefore, will or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and
circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of
reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be
r3 The statute provides as follows:
arrested has committed or is committing a crime."
Wevant. supra. 101 F.3d at 852. There is no dispute
LiLailr, Every person who, under color of any statute, that Officer Daskalakis intended to arrest plaintiff, and
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any State or that plaintiff was aware of and did not consent to her
confinement. Rather, defendants contended at trial that
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other plaintiff's false arrest claim must fail because Officer
Daskalakis had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The
person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Court disagrees.
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper The Court finds that Officer Daskalakis lacked probable
proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Eric Sanders
Page 14 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *287; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **28

cause to arrest plaintiff for any crime on the night of r301 At trial, Daskalakis testified that he inferred
June 12 and 13, 1998. 24 [**29] Because the two plaintiffs intent to defraud from her alleged attempt to
pass off the photocopy of the Oasis' liquor license as the
violations for which plaintiff was charged under the ABC
original. He stated that Initially I was playing the devil's
Law are not crimes, 25 the Court focuses on the felonies
of forgery in the second degree and criminal possessionadvocate, and I was saying, 'maybe she really thinks
of a forged instrument in the second degree, and the that this photocopy is the original, because she was so
derivative misdemeanor charge of criminal simulation. adamant that the photocopy was the original."' (Tr. 135.)
Each of these three offenses involves the "intent to However, "when she eventually gave me the original
defraud, r 2881 deceive, or injure another." See NYPL copy of the license, when she saw that she was going to
.§§ 170.10(3), 170.25, 170.45(2). 25 be issued a summons, and now she changed her story
from the fact the document that I had was the license to
now that she has [another] license, she was purporting it
24Despite the suggestion in their post-trial damages all along to be the original license. And it was my belief
memorandum that plaintiff could have been charged with that there was no license on the premises." (Tr. 139;
some crime other than those with which she was charged, see also Tr. 149.)
(Def. Post-Trial Mem. at 24 n.6), defendants presented no
evidence at trial that would indicate that Officer Daskalakis Daskalakis' explanation is contradicted by his own
believed, or could have believed, that plaintiff had committed, testimony concerning his interaction with plaintiff and
or was about to commit, any crime. her ability to understand his requests. Plaintiff's
repeated reference to the photocopy as "her license"
25Even if these were offenses for which plaintiff could have
does not equate to "purporting it . . . to be the original
been arrested, (Tr. 147), Daskalakis had no probable cause to
license," because plaintiff never stated that it was such
arrest plaintiff for either, because plaintiff was neither the
holder of the license nor the operator of the bar. See ABC Law
and, at the time of this exchange, the officer had not yet
§ 114.6 (requiring the holder to post a liquor license in a requested (-31] the original. See note 13, supra.
conspicuous place before doing business); ABC Law § 64-b Plaintiff assumed, as anyone would, that the police
(prohibiting the operator of a bar to serve liquor without a inquiry had to do with whether the Oasis had a valid
license). Moreover, although the bartender gestured to plaintiff license, one that was in force and effect. When plaintiff
when Daskalakis asked for the owner, neither he nor any other answered Daskalakis' question by stating "this is my
officer asked plaintiff if she was the owner or operator, and license," she was responding truthfully. The photocopy
SLA records clearly indicated that person to be Barbara. (Def. showed that the Oasis had a license. Moreover, when
Ex. Z.) Nor did the officers ask her if she had posted the plaintiff finally understood that Daskalakis wished to see
original license. Thus, it would not have been reasonable for the original—a realization that came in . response to
Daskalakis to conclude that she was holder of the license or Daskalakis' question, "Do you have the original?"—she
the owner of the bar in order to justify an arrest based on the
led him into the bar and produced it for him. (Tr. 126-29,
above sections.
432.) Daskalakis interpreted plaintiffs realization as
2eMer] Section 170.10(3) states: evidence that she "knew [the license she had given him]
was a photocopy," (Tr. 141), and as clear proof that she
"A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, had been trying to deceive him by presenting the copy.
with Intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he 27 But, in actuality, it was plaintiff who was fooled,
falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument
which Is or purports to be, or which is calculated to
become or to represent if completed ...(3) [a] written
instrument officially issued or created by a public office HN91T' Section 170.45 states:
public servant or governmental instrumentality."
"A person is guilty of criminal simulation when . .. 2. With
NYPL § 170.10(3) (McKinney's 1999) (emphasis knowledge of its true character and with intent to defraud,
added).i/Affl Ir] he utters or possesses an object so simulated."
Section 170.20 states: NYPL § 170.45(2) (McKinney's 1999) (emphasis added).

"A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged 27The premise upon which Daskalakis based his ultimate
instrument in the third degree when, with knowledge that inference of plaintiffs intent, namely that plaintiff had originally
it is forged and with intent to defraud deceive, or injure expressed the opinion that the photocopied license was the
another, he utters or possesses a forged instrument." original, is flawed. Since plaintiff had never so insisted, her
production of the original license would not have indicated to a
NYPL § 170.20 (McKinney's 1999) (emphasis added). reasonable officer that plaintiff had been trying to deceive him.

Eric Sanders
Page 15 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *288; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, *4‘31

because she failed to comprehend the exact nature of Daskalakis' testimony concerning the purported
Daskalakis' initial request. In arresting plaintiff, the invalidity of the Oasis' liquor license is also relevant to
officer disregarded the fact that she spoke extremely the Court's finding that he lacked probable cause, and to
poor English, t289] and had trouble understanding its ultimate finding concerning the importance of
what he wanted her to produce. plaintiffs arrest to the Condition Unit's goals. Despite
the fact that the license's validity or invalidity is irrelevant
r'32] During the interrogation Daskalakis recounted at to a determination of forgery or criminal simulation, a
trial, he demanded the liquor license several times, and fact acknowledged by Daskalakis, (Tr. 147, 179), the
had to explain repeatedly why he wanted the license officer's unsupported conclusion that the license was
and why he insisted on removing the original and copy invalid apparently supported his decision to arrest rui
after both had come into his possession. (Tr. 124-26, plaintiff. The officer testified at trial that when he entered
171, 176, 178, 432-33.) At a certain point, when the bar that night, he neither knew where the license
Daskalakis was at his vehicle in the process of writing was nor if it was valid, but stated that two of his
plaintiff a summons, it apparently occurred to him that colleagues on the Conditions Unit had told him that the
plaintiff was having trouble comprehending him, as license was invalid. (Tr. 103, 150-51, 155.) Despite the
plaintiff had twice again asserted that the officer had existence of ambiguous data surrounding the location of
"her license." Daskalakis then finally demanded "the the license and its validity, and the statement on the
original"; plaintiff told him that it was in the bar, and the face of the license that it expired in 1999, Daskalakis
original was produced. (Tr. 126-29.) Nevertheless, testified that he relied on the other officers' alleged
Daskalakis testified at trial that he was not aware that statements for the conclusion that the license was not
plaintiffs native language was not English. He insisted valid. (Tr. 150, 154-55). This judgment, the officer
that "there was no language problem. If [plaintiff] did not testified, became part of the basis for his arrest of
understand me, she never made it known to me. And I plaintiff. (Tr. 139, 144.) Moreover, Daskalakis did not
understood her perfectly." (Tr. 137.) The Court declines inquire of the SLA as to the validity of the Oasis' liquor
to credit this testimony, given the interaction Daskalakis license before arresting plaintiff, an investigation which,
described. Plaintiff's testimony at trial further reflected as Pizzi testified, would only have taken a few minutes.
her extreme difficulty in English expression and (Tr. 130, 145-47.) He simply arrested plaintiff for forgery,
comprehension. She came to the United States at [**33] seized the licenses, and sanctioned the removal of the
age 48 with no knowledge of English, speaks with a bar's liquor inventory. (Tr. 147-48, 157, 160-61.) Such
heavy accent and in incomplete sentences, often actions suggest that plaintiffs mere presentation of the
mistakenly employs pronouns and prepositions, and photocopy, and the officer's unsupported belief that the
enunciates in an irregular manner, with intermittent liquor license rasi was invalid, were Daskalakis'
pauses within sentences as she forms her thoughts. principal rationales for plaintiffs arrest, rather than a
She appears to have trouble understanding English as belief that plaintiff had attempted to defraud him. See
well, and many of the examining attorneys' questions note 42, infra.
had to be repeated to her or rephrased. Moreover, even
after such questions were rephrased, plaintiffs In sum, plaintiff has established by a preponderance of
responses often demonstrated that she had failed to the credible evidence that there was no reasonable
comprehend the question that had been asked. (See, basis for Officer Daskalakis' alleged belief that plaintiff
e.g., Tr. 355, 359, 363-64, 366, 376-83, 396-97, 401, intended to deceive or to defraud him. Thus, the Court
412, 415-16, 424-25.) finds, the officer acted intentionally, and without
probable (*2901 cause, in falsely arresting plaintiff on
In fact, her production of the original was no more an attempt charges of forgery or criminal simulation, thus depriving
to defraud or deceive than her production of the photocopy— her of her Fourth Amendment rights. 28 Moreover,
which was completely honest and reasonable. The mere fact
that plaintiff knew the license she had presented to be a
photocopy does not indicate that she intended to pass that 28 At trial, Daskalakis also insisted that he had probable cause
license off as the original. And the only violation attendant to to arrest for forgery because plaintiff had "falsely made" the
displaying a photocopy of a license arises in the event that the liquor license, i.e. "put it in a copy machine and made it" (Tr.
original license is not conspicuously displayed. While there is 142.) Specifically, he asserted that he came to the conclusion
an issue as to whether the placement of the original was that plaintiff made the original because plaintiff had
conspicuous, this only implicates the charged violation of possession of both documents. (Tr. 141, 178.) Given that (i)
failure to display a liquor license, not the charge of forgery, a there was no evidence indicating that plaintiff had made the
felony. photocopy, (ii) the officer never asked plaintiff if she had made

Eric Sanders
Page 16 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *290; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **35

because the officer had no probable cause to arrest unreasonable under the circumstances. It was not
plaintiff, he likewise lacked probable cause for the facially unreasonable to restrain plaintiffs arms and
charge of resisting arrest j/14/1//e] Under New York place her in handcuffs, even though she was of
law, "[a] person is guilty of resisting arrest when he advanced age. Officer Rosado testified that "there is no
intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police specific guideline telling or explaining to us how to
officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized handcuff a [sic] elderly person," and that police officers
arrest of himself or another person." NYPL § 205.30 always handcuff a defendant in an arrest situation, "for
(emphasis added). Accordingly, an unauthorized arrest [their] own safety and the safety of the other officers."
will bar a charge of resisting arrest See People v. (Tr. 480.) While testimony at trial reflected that plaintiff
Jensen. 86 N.Y.2d 248. 253. 630 N.Y.S.2d 989. 654 was crying and yelling both before, during, and after her
N.E.2d 1237 (1995). Because plaintiff's arrest was arrest, plaintiffs sole allegations with regard to force
unauthorized, Me] Daskalakis did not have probable employed during the arrest were that (i) the handcuffs
cause to arrest her for resisting arrest. were tight, and (ii) that she was pushed or dragged out
of the bar and to the police car. (Tr. 377-78; Amend.
2. Excessive Force Compl. P 11.) Handcuffs, however, are inherently tight
on the wrists, and Daskalakis testified r39j that "99
1W1[T] Allegations of excessive force during arrest percent of [persons] I have arrested has complained
should be analyzed r371 under the Fourth Amendment that their handcuffs are too tight," and that it is his
guarantee against unreasonable seizures of the person, 1"2911 practice to check the tightness of the grip "if
and are analyzed under that Amendment's someone complains that the handcuffs are too tight"
"reasonableness" standard rather than a substantive (Tr. 193.) Further, any possible implication of excessive
due process standard. See Graham v. Connor. 490 U.S. force as plaintiff was led to the police vehicle is
386. 395. 104 L. Ed. 2d 443. 109 S. Ct. 1865 (1989). contradicted by the testimony of Officer Daskalakis, who
The inquiry is whether the officers' actions are stated that she was not kept in the street before being
"'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and placed in the vehicle, (Tr. 174), and by Officer
circumstances confronting them, without regard to their Fernandez, who stated that while she was in handcuffs,
underlying intent or motivation." Id. at 397 (quoting Scott plaintiff "was screaming and cursing" and herself "didn't
v. United States. 436 U.S. 128, 137-39. 56 L Ed. 2d allow the officer to lead her to,the patrol car," (Tr. 205.);
168. 98 S. Ct. 1717 (1978)); Lowth v. Town of cf. Johnson v. Glick. 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973)
Cheektowaga. 82 F.3d 563. 573 (2d Cir. 1996); cf. (finding, in the context of the Eiahth Amendment, that de
NYPL § 35.30 (McKinney's 1999) (stating that an officer minimis use of force, such as a push or shove, does not
"may use physical force when and to the extent he rise to the level of a constitutional violation).
reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the
arrest"). The "reasonableness" of a particular use of B. Claims Arising Out of Plaintiff's Alleged Abuse
force must be judged from the perspective of "a While in Custody
reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the
20/20 vision of hindsight," and its calculus must embody In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts a violation of
an allowance for the fact that police officers are often her constitutional rights as a result of her purported
forted to make split-second decisions about the physical abuse and the denial of medical attention while
amount p38] of force necessary in a particular in custody at the 9th Precinct, which allegedly raj
situation. See Graham. supra. 490 U.S. at 396-97. caused her to suffer "physical arid mental injury, pain,
humiliation and emotional distress, in addition to loss of
Although he effected an unlawful arrest, Daskalakis' liberty." (Amend. Compl. P 13.) These allemtions reflect
actions in restraining plaintiff, placing her in handcuffs, an alleged deprivation of plaintiff's M/ AT] Fourteenth
and then placing her in the police vehicle for transport to Amendment rights, which protects pretrial detainees
the 9th Precinct were not, as a matter of procedure, from punishment without due process. 29 See Bell v.

the photocopy, and plaintiff never so stated, and (iii) the officer
never asked plaintiff if she was the owner of the bar, and, in "The Amended Complaint fails to state that plaintiffs
any case, knew or should have known that plaintiff was not the Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated. However, it
owner, there was no basis for the officer's belief that plaintiff does assert a violation of her Eighth Amendment right to be
herself had made the copy. Testimony at trial indicated that free from cruel and unusual punishment (Amend. Compl. P
Barbara made the photocopy. (Tr. 434.) 22.) The Joint Pretrial Order and plaintiff's Pretrial Statement

Eric Sanders
Page 17 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *291; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **40

Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520, 535-36, 60 L Ed. 2d 447. 99 S. show that defendants exhibited grossly negligent
Ct. 1861 (1979). conduct. See Bryant. supra, 923 F.2d at 984 (noting that
the standard for due process claims against individual
p41] The Supreme Court has held that HN13r4e] the defendants under Section 1983 is still unclear, except
state assumes some responsibility for an individual's that mere negligence is insufficient to state a viable
safety and general well-being when it takes a person claim). The Second Circuit has required a plaintiff to
into custody against his will. See DeShanev v. establish that the defendants "had reason to know of
Winnebago County Dept of Soc. Servs.. 489 U.S. 189. facts creating a high degree of risk of physical harm [to
200. 103 L. Ed. 2d 249. 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989). Under plaintiff) and deliberately acted or failed to act in
such circumstances, it is the "State's affirmative act of conscious disregard or indifference to that r43] risk."
restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own Id. at 985; Bailey. sutra. 1996 WL 733078. at *3. In this
behalf—through incarceration, institutionalization, or case, plaintiff failed to establish at trial that she was at
other similar restraint of personal liberty—which is the risk of physical harm at any time during her
'deprivation of liberty' triggering the protections of the confinement, or that, if there were a risk, that
Due Process Clause." Id. The Government is entitled to defendants acted in conscious disregard or indifference
restrain a detainee's freedom in order to effectuate thereto.
detention, e.g. confining them to a facility and restricting
the detainee's movement, but such confinement may Specifically with regard to excessive force, despite the
not rise to the level of "punishment." See Bell, supra, allegation in the Amended Complaint of physical abuse
441 U.S. at 535-36. However, the Supreme Court has while in custody, plaintiff introduced no evidence of such
noted that "the fact that such detention interferes with abuse at trial so as to suggest that plaintiff was
the detainee's understandable desire to live as punished beyond her mere confinement. The only
comfortably as possible and with as little restraint as allegation of harm against her while in custody is the
possible during confinement does not convert the fact that she was handcuffed to the bars of the holding
conditions or restrictions of detention into 1**421 cell. Specifically, plaintiff testified that "the handcuffs
'punishment.'" Id. at 537. The Second Circuit has were tight," that her hands were sore and swollen, and
recognized that the Due Process Clause protects a that she was chained "higher than I can keep my
pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force, see, hands." (Tr. 378, 412.) She also complained that
e.g., Brown v. Doe, 2 F.3d 1236. 1242 (2d Cir. 1993), Daskalakis did not remove her handcuffs at Bellevue,
and from the failure to provide adequate medical that her legs were swollen upon placement in the cell of
attention, see, e.g., Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979. at central booking, and that she had no place to sit in
984 (2d Cir. 1991). the cell: (Tr. 378-80.) These allegations are insufficient
to establish an excessive force claim, because they do
The protections of the Due Process Clause are at least not indicate [**44] that plaintiff was subject to a high
as great as those of the Eighth Amendment. See degree of risk of serious harm, or in fact, that plaintiff
Revere. P2921 supra. 463 U.S. at 244. HN14rf] In was at risk of any harm at all. Moreover, there was no
order to establish a constitutional violation under the evidence of any grossly negligent, or willful, actions
Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must at a minimum involving force on the part of the officers. It is particularly
telling that, according to plaintiff, the officers "didn't want
of Elements are devoid of allegations under any specific to hurt me, you know, during this time." (Tr. 413.)
constitutional amendment While the Court considers plaintiffs Plaintiffs restraint by handcuffs was merely an incident
allegations of abuse while in custody under the Fourteenth of her detention, and does not amount to the type of
Amendment and declines to find a violation thereof, it notes punishment that violates the Fourteenth Amendment.
that a pretrial detainee is not protected by the Eluhth See Bell, supra. 441 U.S. at 539 ("In the absence of a
Amendment's prescription against cruel and unusual showing of intent to punish, a court must look to see if a
punishment because such a detainee has not been convicted particular restriction or condition, which may on its face
of a crime. See Graham. supra. 490 U.S. at 395 n. 10; City of appear to be punishment, is instead but an incident of a
Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. HOSP., 463 U.S. 239. 244. 77 legitimate nonpunitive governmental objective.").
L. Ed. 2d 605. 103 S. Ct. 2979 (1983); Bailey v. Tricolla. 1996
U.S. Dist LOGS 20067. *7, No. CV 94-4597. 1996 WL
73,078. at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11. 1996) ("For pre-adjudication The same is true with regard to plaintiffs allegations
punishment claims, the relevant constitutional provision is not regarding her denial of medical attention, as plaintiff
the &MO Amendment but the Due Process Clause of the failed to establish that defendant disregarded a serious
Fourteenth Amendment"). risk to plaintiff's health. While Daskalakis may have

Eric Sanders
Page 18 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *292; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **44

denied plaintiff's initial requests for water, and for her Although plaintiff has established a violation of a
asthma medication, this at most amounts to mere constitutional right, Officer Daskalakis may still avoid
negligence; the officer ral called for emergency liability on the ground of qualified immunity. "Illter]
medical assistance immediately when plaintiff appeared Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the
ill and requested a doctor. 3° (Tr. 188, 378.) Moreover, defendants have the burden of raising in their answer
testimony at trial reflected that plaintiff's medical and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary
condition was far from serious. Emergency Medical judgment." 31 Black v. Coughlin. 76 F.3d 72. 75 (2d Cir.
Technician ("EMT') Konstantino Skamalos 1996). It protects state officials from civil liability-for
("Skamalos"), produced by defendants, testified that damages when they perform discretionary functions and
upon his arrival at the precinct, he immediately their conduct does not violate any clearly established
examined plaintiff, who complained of "general malaise" federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a
but "denied . . • any pain or discomfort." (Tr. 488, 490.) reasonable person would have known. See Cook v.
According to Skamalos, his practice is to write down ail Sheldon. 41F.3d 73. 77-78 (2d Cir. 19941(citing Harlow
of his observations concerning a plaintiffs medical v. Fitzgerald. 457 U.S. 800. 818. 73 L. Ed. 2d 396. 102
condition, and according to his report, plaintiff neither S. Ct. 2727 (1982)). "It is now far too late in our
complained of an asthma attack, nor did Skamalos constitutional history to deny that a person has a clearly
observe symptoms of such an attack. Plaintiff was taken established right not to be arrested without probable
by ambulance "without incident" to Ir2931 Bellevue, cause." Id. (citing Soares v. State of Connecticut. 8 F.3d
where she was treated and cleared, with the doctors 917. 920 (2d Cir. 1993)). r481
reporting no injuries. (Tr. 190-92, 379, 490; Def. Ex B-
1.) The testimony at trial reflected the fact that plaintiff, HN16I.IJ "Even where the plaintiff's federal rights and
on the whole, received prompt and effective medical the scope of the official's permissible conduct are clearly
treatment falling well within the requirements of the established, the qualified immunity defense protects a
Fourteenth Amendment. See Revere. supra, 463 U.S. at government actor if it was 'objectively reasonable' for
kg. The fact that plaintiff may disagreeraj with him to believe that his actions were lawful at the time of
certain aspects of that treatment, specifically her referral the challenged act." Lennon v. Miller. 66 F.3d 416. 420
to the psychiatric ward, does not give rise to a cause of (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). If an officer arrests the
action. See Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698. 703 plaintiff without probable cause, the officer is immune
(2d Cir. 1998); Muhammad v. Francis. 1996 U.S. Dist. from suit if he can show either that (i) it was objectively
LEXIS 16785. No. 94 Civ. 2244, 1996 WL 657922 at *6 reasonable for him to believe he had probable cause; or
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 1996). (ii) officers of reasonable competence could disagree
whether probable cause existed. See Golino v. City of
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to New Haven. 950 F.2d 864. 870 (2d Cir. 1991); see also
establish a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment Lennon. supra, 66 F.3d at 420. The simple fact that a
rights. At best, plaintiffs claim is one. of simple defendant acted in good faith Nei is not enough to
negligence which is insufficient to state a viable claim entitle him to qualified immunity. See Duchesne v.
under Section 1983. See City of Canton v. Harris. 489 Sugarman 566 F.2d 817. 832 (2d Cir. 1977); Alvarez v.
U.S. 378. 388 n.8. 109 S. Ct. 1197. 103 L Ed. 2d 412 Abreau, 54 F Supo. 2d 335 341IS D N.Y 1999).
(1989); Bryant. supra. 923 F.2d at 985; see also Daniels
v. Williams. 474 U.S. 327. 331-33, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 106 Here, the Court finds neither that it was objectively
S. Ct 662 (198611""47] (lack of due care does not reasonable for Daskalakis to believe he had probable
constitute the sort of abusive government conduct that cause to arrest plaintiff, nor that officers of reasonable
the due process clause was designed to prevent). competence could disagree on the issue. As discussed
supra, an individual is only guilty of forgery, criminal
IL Qualified Immunity possession of a forged instrument, or criminal simulation
if they intended to defraud or deceive the State of New
York. It is unequivocally clear from the facts of this case
that plaintiff was not trying to defraud the State by
=Plaintiff testified that she was ignored by the officers in the insisting that the Oasis had a p294] liquor license, and
precinct for "many, many, many hours." (Tr. 413.) However,
Daskalakis testified, based on the notations he had recorded
in his memo book, that the longest time plaintiff could have 31Daskalakis asserted the affirmative defense of qualified
been without medical attention was two-and-one-half hours. immunity in his answer. (Answer of Defendant Charles
(Tr. 188-89.) Daskalakis dated Nov. 9, 1999 P 38.)
Eric Sanders
Page 19 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *294; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **49

asserting that the photocopied license was "her liquor 665 N.Y.S.2d 440, 440 (2d Deo't 1997) (holding that a
license." No reasonable officer would have determined police officer committed a battery when he touched the
that it was so, and no officers of reasonable plaintiff during an unlawful p52] arrest) (citing Budoar
competence in the relevant penal laws would disagree v. State of New York. 98 Misc. 2d 588. 414 N.Y.S.2d
on the issue. Officer Rosado, for example, testified that 463, 466 (CL Claims 1979) (finding that "since the arrest
he would not arrest an individual for a felony if she was unlawful, a technical assault and battery occurred
presented a photocopy of a liquor license to an officer, when the claimant was handcuffed and forcibly placed
and subsequently provided the original; likewise, he in the State police car")); Nelson v. Town of Glenville.
averred MO] that an individual would not be guilty of a 220 A.D.2d 955. 633 N.Y.S.2d 222. 223 (3d Deo't 1995)
crime under an analogous situation where she presents (affirming lower court's directed verdict for false arrest
a photocopy of a valid driver's license to an officer and and battery resulting from false arrest when officers
subsequently produces the original license. 32 (Tr. 476- made contact with minor as they attempted to gain entry
79.) The Court therefore declines to find that Daskalakis into her father's house to execute arrest warrant for her
is entitled to qualified immunity. father, handcuffed minor, charged her with obstructing
governmental administration, detained her for one hour
M. State Law Claims 33 at police station, and did not oppose motion to dismiss
charges against minor); Pawloski v. State. 45 Misc. 2d
MA. Assault and Battery 933. 258 N.Y.S.2d 258, 265 (Ct. Claims 1965) (finding
assault and battery arising out of false arrest where
Plaintiff asserts a claim for assault and battery arising
plaintiff "was touched by the State Police"). Because
out of her arrest by Officer Daskalakis, because she
plaintiff's arrest was unlawful in this case, the Court
was "handcuffed and forcibly placed in the police car
finds that Daskalakis is liable for an assault and battery
[and] imprisoned at the station house overnight." (PL
on plaintiff, because, without her consent, he placed his
Pretrial Stmt. of Elements at 4.) HAVerj An assault is
hands on her, Mal handcuffed her, and placed her
"an intentional placing of another person in fear of
into his police vehicle during the course of the unlawful
imminent harmful or offensive contact"; a battery is
arrest.
"Intentional wrongful physical contact with another
person without consent." Lederman v. Adams. 45 F.
B. Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process
Suop. 2d 259. 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (quoting Charkhy v.
Altman. 252 A.D.2d 413 678 N.Y.S.2d 40, 41 (1st Deily HA/19[T] To establish a claim for malicious prosecution
1998) (quoting United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Waterfront N.Y. under New York law, a plaintiff [*2951 must show that (i)
Realty Corp_ 994 F.2d 105 (2d Cir. 1993)). HN1817F1If the defendant initiated a prosecution against the
an arrest is determined to be unlawful, any use of force plaintiff, (ii) the defendant lacked probable cause to
against a plaintiff may constitute an assault and battery, believe the proceeding could succeed, (iii) the
regardless of whether the force would be deemed defendant acted with malice, and (iv) the prosecution
reasonable if applied during a lawful arrest. See was terminated in the plaintiffs favor. See Posr v. Court
Johnson v. Suffolk County Police Dept. 245 A.D.2d 340.
Officer Shield # 207, 180 F.3d 409. 417 (2d Cir. 1999).
The Court finds that Officer Daskalakis is liable for
malicious prosecution.
3t While it Is true that
Rosado testified that the individual would
be guilty of "some type of crime," his judgment was based on Treating the first, third and fourth elements: Daskalakis
the incorrect assumption that the mere photocopying of a valid initiated a prosecution against plaintiff by filing charges
liquor license is a forgery. (Tr. 472-73; 478.) This assumption against her in a felony complaint. (Def. Ex. VV); see,
reflects the officer's lack of reasonable competency with e.g., Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123. 130
regard to the relevant sections of the ABC Law. See page 48
infra. (2d Cir. 1997) (finding that a reasonable jury could find
officer initiated prosecution by filing certain charges
33 Plaintiffs state law false arrest claim was treated in concert against plaintiff and merely playing a role in the filing of
with her federal false arrest claim. In addition, plaintiffs others); Vitale v. Hagan 132 A.D.2d 468, 517 N. Y.S.2d
Amended Complaint asserts state law claims for prima fade 725. 726 (1st Deo't 1987) (discussing rim malicious
tort, negligence, and gross negligence. (Amend. Comp!. P 27.)
Because none of plaintiffs submissions treated these claims, prosecution initiated by police officer in reaction to
and no facts were presented at trial indicating that plaintiff involvement in traffic accident with motorist); New York
intended to establish them, the Court declines to consider the Criminal Procedure Law 4 100.05 (stating that criminal
claims in this Opinion. action is commenced by filing of a felony complaint); cf.

Eric Sanders
Page 20 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *295; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **54

Dickerson v. Monroe County Sheriff's Dept 114 F. Daskalakis' testified at trial that he was not angry or
SUDP. 2d 187, 190 (W.D.N Y. 2000) (finding that where upset by plaintiff's conduct, (Tr. 176), and that at the
officer was actively involved in the case against plaintiff, time of the arrest and prosecution, he maintained a
the fact that he did not prepare and sign charging good faith belief that plaintiff had committed a forgery,
information and that county sheriffs office initiated (Tr. 135, 139, 178). While it is r296] clear that the
charges did not insulate officer from liability with respect officer did not act with evil intent or corrupt design,
to malicious prosecution claim). Because, as discussed Daskalakis' [**57] further testimony indicated that he
supra, probable cause to arrest plaintiff was clearly acted on the basis of a collateral objective. In particular,
lacking, the Court also finds that Daskalakis lacked the Court concludes that plaintiff's arrest—like the arrest
probable cause to believe that the criminal proceeding of other individuals at the Oasis on June 4, 1998—was
against plaintiff could succeed. See Posr, supra, 180 an essential element, indeed the necessary predicate,
F.3d at 417. Finally, because the charges were to the closure of the bar and the seizure of its liquor
dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice by the inventory. Likewise, Daskalakis' initiation of the
District Attorney, the prosecution was terminated in prosecution against plaintiff, which immediately followed
plaintiff's favor. 34 (Pl. Ex. 22.); see Posr, supra. 180 the arrest, was based on this same collateral objective.
F.3d at 418 (stating that "a prosecution is only deemed
to terminate "in favor of the accused r551 if its final From the time it was designated a community "hotspot"
disposition is such as to indicate the innocence of the by the NYPD, which occurred prior to June 12, 1998,
accused.") (citation omitted). see supra, the Oasis became a target premises for
Conditions Unit, and MARCHS, visits. According to
The third element, the issue of malice, requires a more Daskalakis, it was Conditions Unit policy to enter
searching examination in this case. _ifft jele] The establishments like the Oasis at night, and to remove
malice that need be proven in a malicious prosecution liquor even when there was only "an issue as to the
claim "'does not necessarily involve spite, hatred, validity of the license." (Tr. 173.) He further testified that
malevolence, or a corrupt design; it is sufficiently he arrested plaintiff, in part, because "it was [his] belief
established by showing that the baseless suit was that there was no license on the premises." (Tr. 139.)
instituted from any improper and wrongful motive."' Thus, on the night of June 12, 1998, Daskalakis ignored
Brault v. Town of Milton. 527 F.2d 730. 739 (2d Cir. plaintiffs explanations and her production of a
1975), [**68] (en banc) (quoting Sparrow v. Vermont seemingly valid liquor license, and, without any
Say. Bank 95 Vt. 29, 33, 112 A. 206 207 (1921)); see further ("58] inquiry as to the validity of the license,
also Nardelli v. Sternberg 44 N.Y.2d 500, 502, 406 arrested plaintiff for forgery and seized the bar's liquor
N.Y.S.2d 443 377 N.E.2d 975 (1978) (stating that inventory. The principal justification Daskalakis offered
malice requires a showing that the prosecutor acted for the arrest, namely, plaintiffs alleged attempt to
"due to a wrong or improper motive, something other defraud, was unreasonable. His alternative justification,
than a desire to see the ends of justice served"). that there was no license on the premises, does not
Further, while the absence of probable cause may bear justify an arrest; rather, it reflects the officer's collateral
on the malice issue, the two remain independent objective of closing down the bar. The Court therefore
elements of a malicious prosecution action. See Martin finds that, to support the closing of the Oasis and the
v. City of Albany, 42 N.Y.2d 13. 17, 396 N.Y.S.2d 612 removal of its liquor inventory, the police made an
364 N.E.2d 1304 (1977); see also Brault supra. 527 arrest, a felony arrest, of the presumed owner or
F.2d at 739-40 & n. 6. Only where probable cause to manager of the Oasis, rejecting evidence offered that, if
initiate a proceeding is "so totally lacking" may malice properly verified, would have exonerated both plaintiff
reasonably be inferred. Martin. supra. 42 N.Y.2d at 17. and the bar. Similarly, Daskalakis prosecuted this
presumed plaintiff in order to further support such
closing, and his unreasonable decision to arrest her on
34 Defendants, assert, citing the transcript of the criminal court
forgery charges. Because the prosecution was
proceeding, that the proceeding was not terminated in performed with an objective other than to punish plaintiff
plaintiffs favor because the District Attorney stated that
for forgery, criminal simulation and resisting arrest, such
"defendant [i.e. plaintiff here] cleared up the problem." (Def.
Post-Trial Mem. at 17-18; Def. Ex. MMM.) However, the Court prosecution was performed with malice. Alternatively,
finds that this statement is a dear indication of the innocence the Court finds that probable cause for plaintiff's
of plaintiff on the charges brought against her, because it prosecution was "so totally lacking" as to justify an
implies that there was no basis for the prosecution of such inference re] of malice. Martin. supra. 42 N.Y.2d at
charges. 11Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has proven
Eric Sanders
Page 21 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *296; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **59

by a preponderance of the evidence that Daskalakis IV. Municipal Liability


maliciously prosecuted plaintiff on forgery, criminal
simulation, and resisting arrest charges. Plaintiff also contended that defendant The City of New
York ("City') violated her constitutional rights.
HN2/[7] While malicious prosecution concerns the Specifically, plaintiff claimed that the City failed to
improper issuance of process, malicious abuse of adequately train, discipline, supervise, or otherwise
process involves the improper use of process after it is direct the police officers of the Conditions Unit, and
ularly issued. See Cook. supra. 41F.3d at 80. HN22I Officer Daskalakis in particular, concerning the laws
) Under New York law, a malicious abuse of process related to their assigned duties, thereby causing
claim lies against a defendant who (i) employs regularly Daskalakis to engage in wrongful conduct. (Amend
issued legal process to compel performance or Compl. PP 17-19; Pl. Pretrial Stmt. Claims at 7.)
forbearance of some act, (ii) with intent to do harm
without excuse or justification, and (iii) in order to obtain A. Legal Standard
a collateral objective that is outside the legitimate ends
of the process. See id. (citing Curiano v. Suozzi. 63 HN2211,1 The mere fact that an officer, employee, or
N.Y.2d 113. 116. 480 N.Y.S.2d 466. 469 N.E.2d 1324 agent of a municipality deprived a plaintiff of a federal
(1984)). In this case, while Officer Daskalakis acted with right is not itself a sufficient basis for holding the
a collateral objective and wrongful purpose in municipality rem liable to the plaintiff. According to the
v. Dept of Social
prosecuting plaintiff and having her arraigned, see Supreme Court's decision in Mona!!
Cook. supra, 41 F.3d at 80 (stating that having plaintiff Servs., 436 U.S. 658. 56 L Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018
arraigned amounted to legal process), [ 6O] plaintiff (1978), HN24[s f ] in order to establish the liability of a
introduced no evidence at trial that would support the municipality in an action under Section 1983 for the
position that Daskalakis acted with intent to do harm. unconstitutional acts by a municipal employee below the
("Si] Accordingly, plaintiff has [*297] failed to policymaking level, a plaintiff must establish that the
violation of her constitutional rights resulted from a
establish a malicious abuse of process claim. See Ben-
Zaken v. City of New Rochelle, 273 A.D.2d 426. 710 municipal custom or policy, that is, evidence that the
See Vann v. City of New
N.Y.S.2d 106. 108 (2d Dep't 2000); Plataniotis v. 7WE- municipality itself is at fault.
Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 270 A.D.2d 627. 704 York. 72 F.3d 1040. 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Harris.
supra. 489 U.S. at 379); Tuttle. supra, 471 U.S. at 823-
N.Y.S.2d 327. 331 (3d Depit 2000). 36
24. This "official-policy" requirement is intended to
distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of its
employees, so that municipal liability is limited to
360n her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff sought to conduct for which the municipality is actually
establish that Daskalakis acted with animus, because his sole responsible. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati. 475
motivation for arrest was to punish her for protesting his U.S. 469. 478-80. 89 L Ed. 2d 452. 106 S. Ct. 1292
seizure of the liquor licenses. (Memorandum Order date Oct. (1986); Monell. supra, 436 U.S. at 694 ("A local
19, 2000 at 9.) She relied on Daskalakis' deposition testimony government may not be sued under . 1983 for an injury
that "[plaintiffs] actions dictated me" and that "she brought [the inflicted solely by its employees or agents. r*63] ') The
arrest] upon herself," in arguing that her arrest was illegal and plaintiff must establish that the municipality either
performed with malice. (Id.) The Court denied plaintiffs authorized the employee to act in violation of the
motion, citing case authority for the proposition that issues of
plaintiffs rights, or was the "moving force" behind the
knowledge or intent, because they arise on the basis of
inferences drawn from the conduct of the parties, would be violation. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312.
more appropriately established at trial. (Id.) (citing Coolsprinc 326. 70 L. Ed. 2d 509. 102 S. Ct. 445 (1981).
Stone Supply. Inc. v. Am. States Life Ins. Co.. 10 F.3d 144, Specifically, the plaintiff must prove that the City's action
148 (3d Cir. 1993)). In spite of the Court's direction, plaintiff were taken (i) by express legislative grant, (ii) through
failed to introduce any evidence at trial that could lead to the delegation of policymaking authority by those to whom
inference that Daskalakis arrested her with such animus, or the power has been expressly granted, or (iii) by
with intent to do harm. "widespread practice that although not authorized by
a3 While
written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent
malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of process and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with
claims are "closely allied," see Cook, supra, 41 F.3d at 80,
the force of law." St. Louis v. Praorotnik, 485 U.S. 112,
establishing a collateral objective may be sufficient to establish
malice for a malicious prosecution claim, but is not sufficient to
establish malice for a malicious abuse of process claim. See Id. at 78-80 (discussing the elements of each claim).

Eric Sanders
Page 22 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *297; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **63

128, 99 L Ed. 2d 107, 108 S. CL 915 (1988) (internal rights. MS] See Harris. supra. 489 U.S. at 390; id at
quotations omitted). 395 (O'Connor, J., concurring). As the Supreme Court
has explained, "it may happen that in light of the duties
HN251111 The requisite municipal custom or policy may assigned .to specific officers or employees the need for
be established by reference to a single incident of more or different training is so obvious, and the
unconstitutional activity if plaintiff shows that (i) the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of
pOlicy itself is unconstitutional, and (ii) was the cause of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city
the constitutional violation. See Tuttle. supra. (*2987 can reasonably be said to have been deliberately
471 U.S. at 823-24 (holding that proof of a single indifferent to the need." Id. at 390. In such a case, the
incident "is not sufficient to impose liability reill under failure to provide proper training may represent a policy
Monetl unless proof of the incident includes proof that it for which the city is responsible, and may be held liable
was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal if the application of the practice causes injury. See id.
policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal Further, "[while] predicting how a hypothetically well-
policymaker"); id. at 831 (Powell, J., concurring) ('To trained officer would have acted under the
infer the existence of a city policy from the isolated circumstances may not be an easy task for the
misconduct of a single, low-level officer, and then to factfinder, particularly since matters of judgment may be
hold the city liable on the basis of that policy, would involved, and since officers who are well trained are not
amount to permitting precisely the theory of strict free from error and perhaps might react very much like
respondeat superior liability rejected in Monell); see also the untrained officer in similar circumstances . . . judge
Dwares v. City of New York 985 F.2d 94. 100 (2d Cir. and jury, doing their respective jobs, will be adequate to
1993); cf. Pembauer, supra. 475 U.S. at 484 & n.11 the task." Id. at 391.
(holding that the policy which ordered or authorized an
unconstitutional act can be established by a single B. Alleged Municipal ran Policies
decision by proper municipal policymakers). "At the very
least there must be an affirmative link between the In this case, in order to establish municipal liability,
policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged." plaintiff presented evidence at trial as to the City's
Tuttle. supra. 471 U.S. at 823. Where the alleged alleged custom or policy with regard to (i) the closing of
custom or policy is further removed from the a licensed premises without notice or hearing, and (ii)
constitutional violation, "the existence of the the training and supervision of police personnel.
unconstitutional policy . . . must be separately proved."
Id. at 824. Also, where the r65] policy is itself not 1. Closing of a Licensed Premises
unconstitutional, "considerably more proof than the
Testimony at trial established that it was it was the
single incident [alone] will be necessary in every case to
practice of the Conditions r299] Unit to close down
establish both the requisite fault on the part of the
designated community "hot spots" without any notice or
municipality, and the causal connection between the
hearing when there were questions as to the validity of
'policy' and the constitutional deprivation." Id.
the premises' liquor license. Following his description of
One example of a municipal custom or policy that is not plaintiff's arrest, his seizure of the Oasis' liquor license,
and the removal of the bar's liquor inventory, Officer
itself unconstitutional, but which through its application
may still serve as a basis for liability under Section Daskalakis testified as follows:
1983, is the failure to train police officers. The Supreme THE COURT: Just to conclude the subject of the
Court has recognized that HN2611 taking of the liquor. Who authorized or directed the
f] the inadequacy of
police training may constitute Section 1983 liability taking of the liquor from the premises?
"where the failure to train amounts to deliberate THE WITNESS: Sergeant Ferguson.
indifference to the rights of persons with whom police THE COURT: Was that done while you were there?
come into contact." Harris. supra. 489 U.S. at 388; see While you were on the premises you saw Sergeant
also Dwares. supra. 985 F.2d at 100. HN2 Ferguson authorize it?
The
presence of deliberate indifference in a failure to train THE WITNESS: I don't remember when it was
case hinges on (I) whether the training program is done, when he authorized it. I know he authorized.
adequate, (ii) whether the alleged inadequate training
THE COURT: And he authorized it when, [ 68]
can justifiably be said to represent "city policy," and (iii)
after the arrest of Ms. Sulkowska?
whether there is a close causal connection between the
THE WITNESS: Yes.
alleged failure to trairi and violation of constitutional
THE COURT: And effectively by removing the

Eric Sanders
Page 23 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *299; 2001' U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **68

liquor from the premises, you were closing the on June 12, 1998 to ascertain the existence and/or
premises, correct? validity of the bar's liquor license. Despite the
THE WITNESS: Closing it from acting as a bar. incomplete information concerning the location of the
THE COURT: Yes. And this was all being done original license and its validity, the officers failed to
without any hearing or notice to her that there was inquire as to whether the license was still in safekeeping
going to be a closing of the bar, correct? at the SLA, if it had been removed and by Nom whom,
THE WITNESS: Yes. or if the license was in force and effect. Moreover,
THE COURT: And you knew that the State Liquor Daskalakis made no effort to further elucidate these
Authority had procedures for notifying people who issues r714 when plaintiff presented him with the
had licenses, or entities that had licenses, of original license in the early morning of June 13, 1998;
violations that might lead to proceedings for the instead, the officer ignored the statement on the face of
revocation of licenses, and the closing of their the license that it expired in 1999, and, relying on
premises; you knew that? alleged statements from two other officers that the
THE WITNESS: No sir, I didn't. license had been revoked, arrested plaintiff and closed
THE COURT: You didn't know that as part of your the bar. The officer's decision, taken in accordance with
training? his standard practice, is indicative of an unconstitutional
THE WITNESS: They don't — they tell us what we policy, given that Daskalakis arrested plaintiff and
are supposed to do and what we can do. And their sanctioned the bar's closure when he merely "had a lot
administrative procedures. of doubt as to the validity of the license"; "whether, in
THE COURT: Was the removal of the liquor from fact, that license was valid, I don't know. And I still don't
the premises, as far as you understood, a standard know." (Tr. 153.)
procedure?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir . . . It had been done at p71] The Court finds that it was the custom or policy of
prior occasions, at different bars. the NYPD's Conditions Unit to close licensed premises
(Tr. 162-63.) without notice or hearing and without checking with the
SLA, the authorized state agency, to determine whether
Daskalakis further testified that he and the other a target premises is operating without a license or with
members of the 9th Precinct's Conditions MA Unit one that is not valid or in effect. By creating the
went to the Oasis as part of an SLA investigation on MARCHS Task Force, delegating authority to the
June 12, 1998 in order "to determine if [the bar] had a Commanding Officers of local police precincts to create
license" and adhered to the applicable SLA rules. (Tr. lists of undesirable community locations as designated
100, 153). However, the same inquiry had purportedly "hot spots", and authorizing the Conditions Unit to arrest
been the subject of the visits from Conditions Unit people and close down those "hot spots" that were "real
officers on both June 4 and 6, 1998, when liquor had problems" without any notice or hearing, the City made
been removed and the bar Was issued summonses for an official decision constituting an act of government
failure to display a liquor license and permitting policy. See Praprotnik. supra. 485 U.S. at 126.
consumption of alcohol without a liquor license. 37 Alternatively, the Court finds that the actions of the
Hearings were subsequently scheduled for July 1998, at Conditions Unit in closing down such premises and
which evidence regarding the license's validity was to be appropriating their liquor inventory constitute a
discussed. (Tr. 157, 237.) Nevertheless, the Conditions widespread custom or usage with the force of law. See
Unit officers did not allow these proceedings to run their id.
course; and they made no effort before their return visit
The City's custom or policy is unconstitutional, as it
directly authorizes the police to disregard the due
'The investigatory purpose of the Officers' June 12, 1998 visit process rights of corporate and individual licensees, in
is questionable. If, as defendants maintain, the SLA files were violation of Fourteenth Amendment. See Tuttle. supra.
accurate and the license was in safekeeping as of June 4, 471 U.S. at 823-24. r72] Moreover, the policy is
1998, (Def. Post-Trial Mem. at 20 & n.4; Tr. 183), the purpose affirmatively linked to the alleged constitutional violation
of the officers' June 12, 1998 visit could not logically have in this case, namely plaintiffs false arrest on forgery
been to discover if the bar had a license. There was no
charges, because plaintiff's arrest—like the arrest of
testimony at trial that the license had been removed from
other individuals at the Oasis on June 4, 1998 when the
safekeeping, or that there were any further findings as to the
whereabouts or validity of the license, between June 4 and liquor inventory was also seized—was the vehicle
June 12, 1998. through which the Oasis' closure was accomplished.

Eric Sanders
Page 24 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *300; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **72

See id. at 823. 99.) Officer Fernandez, called as a witness by plaintiff,


testified that as a member of the Conditions Unit, he had
According to Daskalakis, it was Conditions Unit policy to "a couple of courses", not necessarily special training,
enter targeted bar establishments at night, and to on SLA laws and rules, as well as "some other training."
remove liquor even when there was only "an issue as to (Tr. 199.) Officer Rosado testified that he received
the validity of the license." (Tr. 173.) Part of Officer special training on SLA rules and regulations in a one-
Daskalakis' justification in arresting was his belief, day course at the Police Academy. The training, as the
formed from talking to other officers of his team, "that officer described it, focused on "the rules they wanted
there was no license on the premises" and that the us to enforce" and included having been shown "an
license had been revoked. (Tr. 139, 150-51.) The original of a liquor license" and "how to recognize a
officer's testimony indicates that on the night of June 12, photocopy." (Tr. 444-45.)
1998, he ignored plaintiffs explanations and her
production of a seemingly valid license, and, in order to 1751 Despite the fact that bar establishments often
support the closing of the bar and seizure of its liquor, display photocopies of their valid liquor licenses,
arrested plaintiff without any further inquiry. The police 1781 Conditions Unit officers were not trained with
declined to consider any delay to allow the SLA
proceedings to take place, or even until the 1731
following morning to allow a more complete inquiry with THE COURT: Tell us what training courses or programs
the SLA as to the license's validity. Instead, as part of you received and when they were.
his Unit's mandate from the City and in accordance with
THE WITNESS: I can't remember when they were, but I
standard procedure, Officer Daskalakis took the most received training from the Environmental Control Board
drastic action in disregard of the constitutional rights of with the use of sound meters, I had received training at
plaintiff and of the corporate licensee. Daskalakis' the Police Academy with regards to SNEU.
actions were supervised and directed by a superior
THE COURT: What do those letters stand for?
officer, Sergeant Ferguson, who was present and acting
in accordance with NYPD standard procedure in THE WITNESS: Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit.
furtherance of the overall policy initiated by the City's THE COURT: What else, what other training or programs
executive authority. (Tr. 162.) were you provided with?

2. Training of Conditions Unit Officers THE WITNESS: I trained in latent prints, which would be
the identification and retrieving of latent fingerprints. I
Even if municipal liability were not established on the can't remember everything but — during unit training at
basis of the City's policy concerning the closing of the precinct I had been trained with regards to SLA
targeted "hot spots" and the seizure of their liquor matters.
inventory, rani the City would still be liable for its THE COURT: Tell us what that training consisted of.
failure to properly train its officers concerning the ABC
Law, the sections of the New York Penal Law directly THE WITNESS: That consisted of I was presented with
implicated by the ABC Law, and SLA operations. the State Liquor Authority's law enforcement handbook
According to the testimony of Officer Daskalakis, the and sections of the handbook were explained to me. It
relevant training of an officer in the Conditions Unit was demonstrated for me the preparation of the forms
solely consisted of being presented with the SLA's law that coincide with any action taken in a licensed or — in a
enforcement handbook, having sections of174] the licensed premise or premise that was supposed to be,
handbook explained, and being instructed in the that should have been licensed.
preparation of certain forms and summonses. 38 (Tr. 94, And did I say preparation of summonses? And it
was ongoing training. There were updates to the
handbook or whatever. We were apprised of the
39 Officer Daskalakis' explanation of the entirety of his training updates.
was as follows:
(Tr. 98-99) (emphasis added).
THE COURT: And at any time, either when you were first
39According to Hachmeyer, it is not uncommon for proprietors
assigned to Conditions or when you were subsequently
reassigned to Conditions, were you given any special to make photocopies of liquor licenses, and some of them
training or education courses, or programs? "place it in the window of the licensed premises so that the
local police officer on the beat can see an [sic] copy of a liquor
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. license." (Tr. 41.) Officer Fernandez testified that he had often

Eric Sanders
Page 25 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *301; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **78

regard to the ABC Law or the sections of the New York trained to believe that?
Penal Law related to the making or displaying of such THE WITNESS: By the Police Department.
photocopies. Under the ABC Law, and according to THE COURT: Is that what the training in the Police
Hachmeyer's trial testimony, the mere making and Department told you?
displaying of such a photocopy is not a crime. (Tr. 41); THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
ABC Law § 114.6 (stating that it is unlawful "knowingly (Tr. 472-73.) 40 Similarly, Daskalakis testified as follows:
to deface, destroy, or alter a liquor license). Moreover,
such display is not cause for a violation if the original THE COURT: 1**771 You mean, making a copy of a
license is displayed in a conspicuous manner. (Tr. at 41- document, such as the [liquor] license, and saying
42); ABC Law § 114.6 (stating that license "shall be this is the license, and handing it to you is a
posted up and at all times displayed in a conspicuous forgery?
place in the room where such business is carried on").) THE WITNESS: Yes.
Officer Rosado, however, testified as follows: (Tr. 146.) Daskalakis also stated at trial that he was not
aware that there is a section of the New York Penal Law
["302] THE COURT: Now, let's go back just a few that contains definitions of the terms contained in the
moments. I think in your examination by Ms. substantive sections of the statute, specifically those
Rossan, [Assistant Corporation Counsel], you relating to forgery. (Tr. 142; NYPL § 170.00.)
mentioned that as part of the MARCHS Task Force
there were representatives of the SLA there? Further, testimony at trial established that NYPD officers
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. receive little or no training in the laws or proper
procedures associated with closing a premises and the
THE COURT: I believe you mentioned that one of seizure of its inventory. As discussed supra, it was the
those representatives was a gentleman rig by "standard procedure" of the Conditions Unit to
the name of Hachmeyer, correct? appropriate liquor inventory and close down "target"
THE WITNESS: Correct. premises without any notice or hearing, and, because
THE COURT: And that is Philip Hachmeyer, inspections were performed late at night or in the early
correct? morning, it was standard practice not to check with the
THE WITNESS: I don't know his name. SLA concerning the validity of a liquor license before
THE COURT: He is an SLA investigator? closing down a target location. (Tr. 161-63, 173.) Officer
THE WITNESS: That could be, yes, sir. Rosado testified that his training did not include
THE COURT: Mr. Hachmeyer, who has also instruction on how to check or investigate whether a
appeared here, stated that he was an SLA liquor license had been canceled, suspended, or
investigator for at least 15 years, and he said that revoked, and that he had never called the SLA to
there is no violation to have a photocopy of a determine that fact. (Tr. 482-83.) Officer Fernandez
license displayed. Are you aware of that, the fact testified that in order to make that determination, he
that that is what the law is? It's not a violation of law would "ask whoever I rim was working with, or ask my
to have a photocopy of a license displayed. Do you supervisor for their opinion." (Tr. 208.) Further, no officer
know that? stated that he had received training with regard to a
THE WITNESS: A photocopy of a license? licensee's rights, specifically the right to due process, or
THE COURT: Yes. with regard to SLA procedures for notifying licensed
THE WITNESS: According to the New York State entities r 3031 of violations that could lead to revocation
Penal Law, that I — from what I have known, that proceedings or the closure of their premises. (Tr. 162-
would constitute a forgery. 63.) As Daskalakis stated, "[the SLA] tell[s] us what we
THE COURT: That is a forgery to have a copy? are supposed to do and what we can do. They don't tell
THE WITNESS: Copy of a governmental document. us what they do. And their administrative procedures."
THE COURT: Did he not tell you — were you (Tr. 163.)

seen color photocopies of liquor licenses displayed and had Given that the photocopying of liquor licenses is a
not issued a summons on those occasions, because "they are frequent practice of New York bar owners, the failure of
allowed to have a photocopy of their license, as long as the
actual, the real license is on display somewhere in the bar,
conspicuously." (Tr. 213.) Rosado and Daskalakis testified that 40Rosado also testified that he did not know that it is not a
they had not seen color photocopies displayed in bars. (Tr. violation to have a photocopy displayed if the original liquor
178-79, 444.) license is conspicuously displayed. (Tr. 474.)

Eric Sanders
Page 26 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *303; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **79

the NYPD or the SLA to properly train members of the constitutes "city policy"; if not prescribed by express
Conditions Unit with regard to laws related to the forgery legislative grant, rmi the program is established
of liquor licenses is evidence of the City's deliberate through the delegation of City policymaking authority,
indifference to the rights of licensees and bar and instruction is provided by the NYPD, the SLA, and
employees, such as plaintiff in this case, with whom the other City agencies. Cf. Praprotnik, supra, 485 U.S. at
officers come into contact The same is true, although to 126. Further, plaintiffs arrest is a consequence flowing
a lesser degree, with respect to officers' training directly from such inadequate training, because it
concerning the proper procedures for closing down a resulted from (i) Officer Daskalakis' misapplication of the
premises. 41 The Court finds that the need for more and New York Penal Law provisions related to forgery,
adequate training concerning these two areas which arose from his ignorance of the statute, and (ii)
should r801 have been obvious to the City in light of his application of an unconstitutional policy related to
the duties of the officers of the Conditions Unit, such the closure of premises, which itself resulted from the
that the City may reasonably be said to have been Conditions Unit officers' inadequate training in SLA
deliberately indifferent to this need. See Harris. supra, operations. 42
489 U.S. at 390.
r831 r3041INJURIES AND DAMAGES
The New York State Legislature has mandated that
regularly appointed police officers be exposed to an A. Injuries
exacting training program, see New York General
Municipal Law 6 209-a, consisting of no less than 510 In the Complaint, plaintiff claims that she suffered
hours of coursework and covering such topics as the "physical injury" as a result of her arrest and detention.
"administration of justice" and "basic law," see 9 Official The only evidence of physical injury that plaintiff
Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations of the presented at trial, however, was her testimony that (i)
State of New York CNYCRR") § 6020.3(a) (McKinney's her hands were hurt and were swollen from the
2000). The legislature rail has further prescribed that application of the handcuffs during her detention, and (ii)
the specific time allotment for the listed categories and her legs were swollen upon her transfer to central
respective titles/topics are to be established by the booking. 43 r84] (Tr. 378-80. 412.) Plaintiff submitted
Police Council and published by the Police no documentation at trial showing physical injuries, and
Commissioner. Id. In New York City, the training school her alleged injuries were contradicted by the testimony
for new police recruits provides several hundred more of Skamalos, the examining EMT, • who stated that
hours of training in a wide variety of areas, including plaintiff did not complain of swollen wrists, only of
police science and law. See People v. Rosario. 78 general malaise, nor did he observe that she had
N.Y.2d 583, 592, 578 N.Y.S.2d 454, 585 N.E.2d 766 swollen wrists. (Tr. 491; Def. Ex. B-2.) Plaintiffs alleged
(1992) (Titone, J., dissenting) (citing Police Department physical injuries also contrast with the Bellevue records,
of City of New York, Commanding Officer of Police which indicated no physical problems other than an
Academy, Memorandum re: Police Officer Training, undefined "heart" problem which plaintiff related. "
DCTr. No. 667-91 (Sept 30, 1991)). The law curriculum
is designed to provide officers "with a working
knowledge of criminal and procedural law" through, infer
42Daskalakis' action in arresting plaintiff and sanctioning the
alia, the use of workshops and films. Id. seizure of liquor was apparently based on his mistaken beliefs
that (I) making a photocopy and presenting it to an officer
The training program at the Police Academy and police amounts to the crime of forgery under New York law, and (ii)
precincts for Conditions Unit members, as described by the Oasis' license itself was invalid. As noted supra, his
the officers who testified at trial, is inadequate, because conclusion that plaintiff attempted to pass off the license was
it fails to provide training in some of the most basic laws not objectively reasonable, and the Court declines to credit his
implicated by the officers' duties. This training program testimony in this regard.
43Plaintiff also testified that she could not breathe because
41 The City's failure to train the officers in this regard, although
"something happened to my blood pressure." (Tr. 412.) The
inexcusable, is understandable, given that the City itself Court declines to consider this injury because it is imprecise
authorizes these activities as the standard practice of the and was not reflected in the medical examinations
Conditions Units and the MARCHS Task Force. The City's subsequently performed by the EMTs or by the doctors at
ability to perceive the inadeqbacy of the training, therefore, is Bellevue.
severely circumscribed. " Dr. Harold Appel ("Dr. Apper'), a neurologist produced by

Eric Sanders
Page 27 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *304; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **84

(Def. Ex. B-1.) Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff (Tr. 193.) Barbara testified that plaintiff simply "was very
suffered no physical injuries as a result of her arrest and upset' when she spoke to her on June 13, 1998, and
subsequent detention. "wanted to just rest and sleep." (Tr. 236.) However,
plaintiff testified that, after arriving home on the
However, plaintiff did suffer significant emotional injury afternoon of June 13, 1998, she was afraid that
which has required treatment The Court first notes that someone would shoot her. (Tr. 381.)
in the determination of the monetary damages to be
awarded to the plaintiff for the emotional distress Dr. Lowell Anderson ("Anderson"), a psychologist of 30
sustained as a result of her arrest, it must be careful not years currently affiliated with Bellevue, was called as a
to compensate the plaintiff for any distress unrelated to witness by plaintiff. Anderson is an associate professor
her arrest At times prior to her arrest and detention on in the Psychiatry Department of New York University
June 12, 1998, plaintiff had been depressed. Her Medical Center and is in charge of Bellevue's Behavior
husband's death in the 1980s caused her significant Medicine Health Psychology Program. (Tr. 271.)
anxiety. (Tr. 291,. 382-83.) She stated to a doctor in Anderson testified that plaintiff was referred to him for
1992 that she ["*85] remained depressed about her treatment by her primary care physician in fall 1999,
husband's death and worried that her daughters were because plaintiff had been complaining of insomnia. (Tr.
being mistreated by their respective husbands; she also 273, 275, 287.) His initial psychological evaluation
complained of the inability to sleep. (Def. Exs. B-5, B- focused r871 specifically upon the effect of plaintiff's
12, B-13.) Moreover, in 1994, plaintiff had an operation arrest and detention, as plaintiff immediately began to
to remove a brain tumor. (Tr. 264-65; Def. Exs. B-10, B- recount the events of June 12 and 13, 1998. (Tr. 276.)
15.) Anderson testified that he found plaintiffs account
believable, and concluded that plaintiff was suffering
Plaintiff asserted that on the night of her arrest, she from post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). (Tr. 276.)
suffered humiliation and embarrassment, specifically In particular, he determined that plaintiff (I) had been
from being arrested and led out of the bar in the exposed to a trauma involving intense fear or
presence of patrons, (Tr. 318; Def. Ex. LLL P 14; Def. helplessness; (ii) had been re-experiencing the event,
Ex. G at 1), from being led through the hospital in for example, through flashbacks, nightmares, or by
handcuffs, (Tr. 378-79), and being placed in the cell at seeing the police in places where they were not, which
central booking • with other, younger detainees, who was evidenced in part by physiological respiratory
insulted her, (Tr. 380). Such humiliation caused her to increases in heart rate and sweating; (iii) was avoiding
feel that she "couldn't hide"; she "wanted to be dead . . . certain things, such as the precinct house, associated
[and] didn't know what to do." (Tr. 379.) However, the with the event (iv) had demonstrated symptoms of
extent of plaintiff's emotional injury was not apparent increased arousal, including the inability to sleep and
during the course of her arrest or even in the period difficulty concentrating; and (v) had a sense of a
immediately following her release. Although plaintiff foreshortened future because happiness would no
cried and/or screamed during the course of the arrest, longer be possible for her. (Tr. 276-78, 323.) These
while at the 9th Precinct, and during her transport to symptoms caused "significant clinical impairment," in
Bellevue, Skamalos observed that plaintiff merely particular social avoidance, and have continued and not
"refused to cooperate" [**8S] with the medical unit and abated. 45 (Tr. 278-79, 381, Def. Ex. LLL PP 21-22.)
reported that she didn't feel well. (Def. Ex. B-2.) Anderson testified that plaintiff ["88] suffered a serious
Similarly, the doctors at Bellevue determined that injury, "has not gotten better" although she improved at
although plaintiff was in a bad mood, she was not in the beginning, "[her condition] has been very hard on
need of psychiatric treatment (Def. Ex 8-1; Tr. 308-11.) her," and her treatment will be ongoing for the
Daskalakis testified that during the course of the night, foreseeable future. (Tr. 279-80, 340.)
plaintiff appeared angry but not visibly r3051 terrified.
In their post-trial damages memorandum, defendants
plaintiff, testified that plaintiff had a transient ischemic attack or
TIA, which is similar to a stroke, approximately three months
after the incident in question, and opined that the attack had 45 Anderson also testified that a delayed onset of symptoms is
no relation to plaintiffs arrest and subsequent detention on common in PTSD patients, with such delay being months or
June 13, 1998. (Tr. 348-49, 351-52.) He further testified that years. (Tr. 341.) This may explain why plaintiff did not
he treated plaintiff for headaches after the date of her arrest, demonstrate psychological trauma on the night of the incident,
but did not believe that the headaches were caused by the or even shortly thereafter, a point accented by defendants at
arrest or surrounding events. (Tr. 351.) trial. (Tr. 307-08.)

Eric Sanders
Page 28 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *305; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516,."88

asserted that Anderson's methodology, and plaintiffs plaintiff does not appear to have Alzheimer's [*101
failure to disclose certain facts to the doctor, "calls into Disease, in part because plaintiff is lucid when
question Dr. Anderson's diagnosis of PTSD." (Def. Post- discussing subjects other than her arrest, and (iii) there
Trial Mem. at 9.) The Court disagrees, and finds is no linkage between plaintiffs PTSD symptoms and
Anderson's diagnosis of PTSD to be credible. 46 On plaintiff's . history of insomnia and depression
cross-examination, the doctor conceded that, in his surrounding the death of her husband, her 1994 brain
initial examination, he asked plaintiff some closed- surgery, or her advancing age. (Tr. 281-82, 291-94,
ended questions with regard to her symptoms, arrived 297-98, 304-07.)
at rain a tentative diagnosis of PTSD quickly without
having looked at plaintiffs medical records, and failed to r*911 Plaintiffs testimony also indicated that the
take notes concerning the details of certain symptoms. emotional injury she has suffered is intense and
(Tr. 285-86, 288-91, 294-95, 301-02, 312-13, 322-23, pervasive. She testified that she remains constantly
325, 335-36.) However, Anderson has seen plaintiff 13 afraid that someone is coming to kill her, and never
more times since the initial visit, has since examined her goes to bed without checking all the doors and looking
medical history, was sure of his diagnosis after in corners, under the bed, and in the closet. (Tr. 381-
spending two-and-one-half hours with plaintiff, and 82.) She sees a "picture" of the events of the night of
stated that his diagnosis "will r306I not change." (Tr. her arrest "all the time." (Tr. 414.) Moreover, the fact
279, 332, 339.) While plaintiff does not exhibit all the that she has not gotten better seems to have resulted in
possible symptoms of PTSD, Dr. Anderson made his further depression. (Def. Ex. G.) Plaintiff's emotional
determination on the basis of his lengthy examination of injury appears to be particularly acute in her case
plaintiff, and in accordance with the symptom categories because of her background. Plaintiff testified that she
listed in a prominent diagnostic manual published by the feels afraid of the police for the following reason:
American Psychiatric Association, called Diagnostic &
"Because, because, you know, I came over here to
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4d ed. 1994)
this country because I — you know, I wanted my,
("DSM IV"). 47 (Tr. 277-79, 323; Def. Ex. FFF.) Further,
the doctor specifically ruled out other conditions and me and my daughters be free. And then I did
everything, it was very hard to go from Poland and
influences in arriving at his current conclusion regarding
to go to Germany, but I did everything to get the
plaintiffs condition. In particular, he stated that (I) he has
permission, get the passport, you know. And it cost
seen no evidence of previous psychiatric disorders, (ii)
me much time. And my health, you know, to do this
. . . You know, I know that you know we pay so high
price for, you know, the liberty over here, for me
48 Defendants produced no expert on the issue of plaintiffs and my daughters, and my husband paid so high,
injuries.: Defendants made a belated demand, several months 1**94 you know, price . . . ." (Tr. 382-83).
after the close of discovery, for the appointment of an expert,
which was denied by the Court. The fact that Dr. Anderson's While she continues to work regularly at the Oasis,
conclusions concerning plaintiff's emotional injuries were plaintiff testified that she is performing less work at the
uncontroverted provides additional support for these bar than she did before the arrest. (Tr. 420-21.) She
conclusions. See, e.g., Blondin v. Dubois. 238 F.3d 153, 2001 stated that she is afraid of the police, tries to avoid
U.S. App. LEXIS 77. *20. 2001 WL 40566. at *6 (2d Cir. 2001) them, and has not been able to visit the 9th Precinct.
(emphasizing "the absence of any contravening evidence" in Plaintiff acknowledged that she attended the depositions
affirming plaintiffs medical expert's conclusions as to the of each of the officers deposed in this lawsuit, and
existence of PTSD and its effect on the psychological well- Officers Daskalakis, Fernandez, and Rosado all testified
being of defendant's children). that plaintiff did not appear to be terrified or upset during
a Anderson stated that because plaintiff recalled everything the examinations. (Tr. 194, 212, 451-52.) Rosado
that happened on the night of her arrest, she failed to satisfy further testified that plaintiff did not run away from police
one subset of the criteria of persistent avoidance, the "inability officers who visited the bar as part of the MARCHS
to remember aspects of the event." (Tr. 278.) But according to Task Force visit in November 1999, and that plaintiff
DSM IV, an individual need not exhibit all possible symptoms grabbed a police sergeant's arm to ask him a question
to qualify for a PTSD diagnosis. (Def. Ex. FFF.); see also In re during a subsequent investigation in April 2000 for a
Air Crash Disaster at Charlotte, North Carolina on July 2, noise complaint (Tr. 448-50.) However, Dr. Anderson
1994, 982 F. Sum. 1101. 1107 (D. &C. 1997) (reporting testified that as part of plaintiff's continuing treatment, he
doctors testimony that different individuals have alternate
ways of exhibiting PTSD). and his colleagues "have been encouraging her to go

Eric Sanders
Page 29 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *306; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **92

and be with the police." (Tr. 320.) He also testified that, false arrest claim, damages for that claim cover the time
in her final session before the trial, he had trouble of detention up until issuance of process or arraignment,
convincing plaintiff to attend, "because she re3] was but not more. From that point on, any damages
afraid the police would see her and kill her." (Tr. [*307] recoverable must be based on a malicious prosecution
327.) Finally, despite the fact that he had given plaintiff claim. . . .")); Hvah v. Jacobs. 961F.2d 359. 366 (2d Cir.
a letter in case she wanted to sue, Anderson stated that 1992); Williams v. Moore. 197 A.D.2d 511, 602
he determined that plaintiff was not malingering, on the N.Y.S.2d 199. 202 (2d Dept 1993). In this case,
basis of her conflicting feelings concerning the pursuit of damages for malicious prosecution specifically will be
litigation and her expressed mistrust of the American minimal, because the injuries of which plaintiff
legal system. 48 (Tr. 327-29, 331; Letter of Lowell T. complains principally surround the event of her arrest
Anderson, Ph.D. dated Nov. 10, 1999, Def. Ex. R; Def. and pre-arraignment detention. Plaintiff was released
Ex. G at 5.) The Court's observations of plaintiff at trial from custody following her arraignment and had only
accord with the account given by plaintiff and Dr. one further hearing, the September 2, 1998 proceeding
Anderson; in particular, she was emotionally upset while where the charges were dismissed. Further, plaintiff
recounting the events of June 12 and 13, 1998, crying at presented no evidence at trial, or in her post-trial
certain junctures, and appeared to have severe damages memorandum, concerning any actual
problems concentrating throughout her testimony. pecuniary losses she has suffered as a result of her
arrest and subsequent detention, or any of her
Further, Barbara testified that from a certain [- 94] point expenses. There was, for instance, no testimony that
following the arrest, plaintiff has been "in shock . . .very she could no longer work, and she presented no cost
stressed out. Very anxious." (Tr. 236.) The records of estimates with regard to her continuing psychiatric
Dr. Appel, for plaintiffs visits in late 1998 and early treatment or other medical expenses. 49 Thus, (*Vs] in
2000, reflect that she described her wrongful arrest to its discussion of compensatory damages, the Court
him, that she "was tearful and depressed," that "she had focuses on plaintiffs emotional distress damages
fear of [the events] happening again," and was incurred from the time of plaintiffs arrest to her release
"preoccupied with [the events] by her own admission." from custody. 50
(Def. Ex. B-16.)
2i 2/ 1 64] "When. Section 1983 plaintiffs seek damages
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has proved, by
for violations of constitutional [*308] rights, the level of
a preponderance of the credible evidence, that, during
damages is ordinarily determined according to principles
her arrest and subsequent detention, she was
derived from the common law of torts." Memphis
humiliated, and that as a result of such arrest, sustained
Community Sch. Dist. v. Stachura. 477 U.S. 299, 306.
a post-traumatic distress disorder, with accompanying
91L Ed. 2d 249, 106 S. CL 2537 (1986) (citing Smith v.
symptoms of depression, anxiety, fear, and disturbed
Wade. 461 U.S. 30, 34. 75 L. Ed. 2d 632 103 S. Ct.
sleep, to the present date.
1625 (1983)). Hi _1/301 Compensatory damages are
B. Damages damages grounded in determinations of plaintiffs actual
losses p97] caused by the deprivation of her
1. Compensatory Damages constitutional rights and "may include not only out-of-
pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also such
mei The law provides that damages may be injuries as impairment of reputation . . . personal
awarded for false arrest only from the period from initial humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering." 477 U.S.
custody through arraignment, and damages may be at 307 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
awarded for malicious prosecution for injuries suffered
following arraignment See Singer v. Fulton County HN31rfj The measure of damages for pain and
Sheriff. 63 F.3d 110. 117 (2d Cir 1995) (citing W. suffering or emotional distress is the fair and reasonable
Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of
Torts raej § 119, at 888 (5th ed. 1984) elf there is a
48 Plaintiff, in her post-trial damages memorandum, stated that
she is taking certain medications for her condition. (Pl. Post-
48 The fact that Anderson gave plaintiff this letter approximately Tdal Mem. at 3.) However, no cost.figures were provided.
five months after plaintiff filed this action, and without knowing 50 The damages for Daskalakis' assault and battery on plaintiff,
that she had filed suit, is immaterial to his diagnosis. (Tr. 329- which occurred during the course of her arrest, are also
30.) encompassed by this analysis.

Eric Sanders
Page 30 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *308; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, **97

compensation to be fixed by the trier of fact in the light


of all the evidence in the case. See Mileski v. Long
to a police officer harassed by fellow officers, where no
Island Rail Road Co., 499 F.2d 1169, 1172 (2d Cir.
permanent harm resulted); Komlosi v. Fudenbera. 2000 U.S.
1974); Mathie v. Fries. 935 F. SUIDD. 1284, 1304 Dist. LEXIS 4237, at *43-*53, No. 88 Civ. 1792 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
(E.D.N.Y. 1996) ("Mathie in). Unlike pecuniary losses, 31, 2000) (awarding plaintiff $ 500,000 for non-economic loss
these damages are, by their nature, not easily translated arising out of false arrest and sexual harassment where
into a dollar amount. See Mathie v. Fries. 121F.3d 808. plaintiff psychologist was incarcerated for two weeks, required
814 (2d Cir. 1997) ("Mathie II"). Consequently, the law years of psychiatric treatment, and was so concerned about
does not provide a precise formula by which pain and the possibility of the recurrence of false allegations that he
suffering and emotional distress may be properly was unable to resume his career); Martinez v. Gayson, 1998
measured and reduced to monetary value. U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12281. No. 95 CV 3788, 1998 WL 564385, at
*6 (ED.N.Y. June 30, 1998) (remitting award of compensatory
In this case, quantifying plaintiffs pain and suffering is damages from $ 310,000 to $ 160,000 in false arrest case
particularly difficult, because, with the exception of the where plaintiff suffered no physical injuries, only some
humiliation that occurred during the arrest, (i) humiliation, and was in custody for approximately five hours);
plaintiffs suffering has occurred over the two-and-one- Bert v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 166
A.D.2d 351. 561N.Y.S.2d 416. 417 (1st Deo't 1990) (awarding
half years since the time of her arrest, and (ii) while it is
$ 100,000 to plaintiff for emotional distress where he was
indisputable that plaintiff's distress which is manifested wrongfully detained by police officers for approximately three
as PTSD will remain with her for a substantial period of hours and humiliated before his young child); Omdorff v. De
time, the length of this period is unknown and there are Noover Chevrolet, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 365. 503 N.Y.S.2d 444.
questions as to the degree to which the plaintiff will be 447-48 (3d Dept1986) (affirming $ 50,000 for false arrest
able to cope with her trauma in the interim. where plaintiff was held in custody for 12 hours and ridiculed
Nevertheless, it is obvious to the Court that the In a newspaper); of. Vitale v. Hagan, 132 A.D.2d 468. 517
emotional injury that plaintiff has endured has been N.Y.S.2d 725. 726 (1st Dept 1987) (affirming award of $
severely limiting, even debilitating at times, and will be a 750,000 for malicious prosecution arising out of an altercation
significant factor in plaintiff's life for the foreseeable between a motorist and police sergeant as.a result of which
future. Thus, having considered the relevant testimony, plaintiff was charged with assault and resisting arrest).
including plaintiffs testimony and the testimony of Dr. 53 See, e.g., Mathie Il. supra, 121 F.3d at 813-15 (upholding $
Anderson, who specializes in the study and treatment of 250,000 in compensatory damages, including emotional
PTSD and other psychological injuries, the Court damages arising out of PTSD, for sexual attack on plaintiff
concludes that plaintiff has been severely, and perhaps inmate by defendant security guard, with a reduction on
permanently, injured. Based on the foregoing, and on account of the fact that his distress was caused in part by his
awards of emotional distress damages in similar cases, participation in a murder for which he was incarcerated);
51 in particular those involving false arrest or other Schneider v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp.. 987 F.2d 132.
police misconduct, 52 r100] and PTSD, 53 see Mathie 137-39 (2d Cir. 1993) (upholding jury verdict of $ 1.75 million
including approximately $ 1 million in "intangible damages" to
compensate plaintiff for PTSD, depression, and organic brain
61The Court considers the reasonableness of the damages syndrome arising out of physical attack); Smith v. Kmart Coro..
award under both federal and state law, because defendants 177 F.3d 19, 30-32 (1st Cir. 1999) (upholding jury verdict of $
are liable to plaintiff on both federal and state claims. 500,000 for non-economic damages to plaintiff, specifically
physical injury and emotional injury as a result of PTSD and
52 See, e.g., Bender v. City ofNew York. 78 F.3d 787. 792 (2d loss of enjoyment of life, arising out of injury suffered in a
Cir. 1996) (awarding $ 150,000, reduced from $ 300,000 upon department store); Ruiz v. Caraballo. 929 F.2d 31, 34-35 (1st
jury verdict, arising out of a false arrest and malicious Cir. 1991) (upholding $ 350,000 award for past and future
prosecution, where plaintiffs injuries consisted essentially of a damages when there was evidence that plaintiff was
minor blow to the mouth, 24 hours' confinement, the pendency diagnosed with PTSD and suffered a partial disability as a
of criminal charges for six months, and some "nightmares and result of beating by police, although a portion of the award
occasional loss of sleep"); Gardner v. Federated Dent Stores, could have represented lost future earnings); In re Air Crash
907 F.2d 1348. 1354 (2d Cir. 1990) (sanctioning award of $ wont 982 F. Suva. at 1106 (awarding $ 220,000 in damages
200,000, $ 50,000 for deprivation of liberty and $ 150,000 for for emotional injury for PTSD arising out of trauma suffered as
past pain and suffering, where plaintiff was falsely arrested a result of an airplane crash); Webb v. Hvman. 861 F. Supra.
and held in custody for approximately eight hours, sustaining 1094. 1116 (D. D.C. 1994) (affirming jury verdict of $ 300,000
an injury to the jaw and emotional distress); Hushes v. in emotional distress damages against city and corrections
Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc.. 850 F.2d 876. 879. 884 (2d officer for sexual assault, where assaults resulted in PTSD);
Cir. 1988 (awarding $ 225,000 in emotional distress damages Roundtree v. City, 208 A.D.2d 407, 617 N.Y.S.2d 170, 171

Eric Sanders
Page 31 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *308; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, "100

II. P3091 supra. 121 F.3d at 813 (noting that damage Due Process Clause, see BMW of North America. Inc.
determinations should not be made r991 in a vacuum), v. Gore. 517 U.S. 559. 574-75. 134 L Ed. 2d 809. 116
the Court finds that defendants are liable, jointly and S. Ct. 1589 (1996), which have subsequently been
severally, in the amount of $ 275,000 for the emotional relied on by the Second Circuit in reviewing punitive
injuries that plaintiff has sustained as a result of her damages awards, see Mathie IL supra. 121F.3d at 816.
arrest This award applies to plaintiffs past and future These guideposts are: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility
pain and suffering. of the tortious conduct, (2) the ratio of punitive damages
to compensatory damages, and (3) the
r101) 2. Punitive Damages difference r**1031 between this remedy and the civil
penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases."
gym?! The purpose of punitive damages is "to punish Id. (noting that, for the third element, the relevant
the defendant for his willful or malicious conduct and to comparison is with both civil and criminal penalties.) The
deter others from similar behavior." Memphis. supra. ultimate goal is "to make 'certain that the punitive
477 U.S. at 307 n.9. Punitive damages are available in damages are reasonable in their amount and rational in
Section 1983 cases, but only "when the defendants light of their purpose to punish what has occurred and to
conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or deter its repetition." Lee v. Edwards, 101F.3d 805. 809
intent, or when it involves reckless or callous (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Vasbinder v.. Scott, 976 F.2d
indifference to the federally protected rights of others." 118. 121 (2d Cir. 1992)). Several courts have upheld
Smith v. Wade. 461 U.S. 30, 56, 75 L Ed. 2d 632, 103 punitive damages awards in cases similar to the instant
S. Ct. 1625 (1982). Punitive damages are not available one. 55
from a municipality. See Jefferson v. City of Tarrant 522
U.S. 75. 79. 139 L Ed. 2d 433. 118 S. Ct. 481 (1997) rum Having considered the totality of the evidence,
(citing Newport v. Fact Concerts. Inc.. 453 U.S. 247. 69 including the nature and circumstances of the officer's
L. Ed. 2d 616, 101 S. Ct. 2748 (1981)). tortious conduct, the principles of law set forth above,
and the need to punish the defendant and deter others
In this case, there was no evidence presented at trial from acting in a similar manner, the Court assesses
that would indicate that Daskalakis acted with evil intent. punitive damages against Officer Daskalakis in the
However, the Court finds that Daskalakis acted with amount of $ 7,500.
reckless disregard for plaintiff's rights in falsely arresting
and maliciously prosecuting her, in order to serve the
collateral objective of the closure of the Oasis bar. Such 55 See, e.g., King v. Maori, 993 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1993)
recklessness calls r1021 for the type of deterrence that (awarding $ 150,000, reduced from $ 250,000 to plaintiff held
punitive damages are designed to provide. 54 in pretrial detention for two months at Rikers Island as a result
of a malicious prosecution, suffering physical and
r3101 fritiOr tj In determining the amount of punitive psychological injury); Ismail v. Cohen. 899 F.2d 183, 185, 187
damages, the Supreme Court has recently identified 12d Cir. 1990) (awarding $ 150,000 to plaintiff who was
three "guideposts" that bear on the reasonableness of severely beaten by police officer, placed in jail for 60 hours,
such awards, at least the outer limits imposed by the and wrongly charged with several offenses, suffering physical
and psychological Injury); Lee. supra, 101 F.3d at 812-13
(1st DeD't 1994) (upholding $ 200,000 damages award for
(awarding $ 75,000, reduced from $ 200,000 for malicious
prosecution and assault and battery, where plaintiff suffered
emotional distress damages, taking into account the
some physical injury and was confined for a few hours);
"unremarkable circumstances of plaintiffs [false] arrest," his
Martinez, supra, 1998 WL 564385, at *3 (affirming jury award
detention, the publicity attendant to the arrest, and evidence of
of $ 10,000 punitive damages in case involving false arrest
PTSD); third v. New York City Transit Auth.. 172 A.D.2d
579. 568 N.Y.S.2d 628 (2d Dont 1991) (reducing $ 950,000 and malicious prosecution for two misdemeanors and a
violation, where plaintiff was confined for five hours and
jury verdict for compensatory damages to $ 250,000, where
plaintiff suffered injuries in the form of minor scarring and suffered no injuries); Davis v. McGlauohlin, No. 82- CV-2727.
1989 let& 47699 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1989) (awarding $
"there was some indication that plaintiff suffered from post-
traumatic stress disorder" arising out of false arrest by police). 30,000 to plaintiff for malicious prosecution by corrections
officer); Papa v. City of New York, 194 A.D.2d 527, 598
54 While plaintiffs counsel represented to the Court at the N.Y.S.2d 558, 563 (2d Deo't 1993) (reducing award to $
close of trial that he "didn't think he was looking for" punitive 500,000 in case involving assault and battery where officers
damages, (Tr. 502), plaintiffs post-trial • damages opened fire on plaintiffs and beat them, causing substantial
memorandum asserts punitive damages as they are plead in physical injury, false arrest, and malicious prosecution,
the Amended Complaint (Pl. Post-Trial Mem. at 5-6.) including being handcuffed to a pipe).

Eric Sanders
Page 32 of 32
129 F. Supp. 2d 274, *310; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 516, "104

3. Attorneys Fees

SI Igirj In Section 1988 of the Civil Rights Act of


1871, . 42 U.S. C. § 1988(b), Congress provided that the
Court, in its discretion, may allow a prevailing party in a
Section 1983 action to recover attorneys fees as an
element of costs. See Bonner v. Guccione. 178 F.3d
581. 597 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court orders plaintiffs
counsel to provide the Court, within 14 days from the
date of this Opinion, with an affidavit (I) identifying the
fee arrangement his office has with plaintiff, and, if
available, the applicable hourly rates, and (ii) containing
time records which itemize in detail the hours when
work was performed on the case and the subject of the
work performed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds (i) that Officer
Daskalakis is liable to plaintiff for false arrest, (*905]
assault and battery, and malicious prosecution, and (ii)
that the City is liable to plaintiff for maintaining a policy
and practice that resulted in the violation of plaintiff's
constitutional rights. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
enter judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants,
jointly and severally, in the sum of $ 275,000 for
compensatory (*311] damages, and against Officer
Daskalakis individually in the sum of $ 7,500 for punitive
damages, suffered as a result of plaintiff's arrest and
detention on June 12 and 13, 1998.

SO ORDERED.

ALLEN G. SCHWARTZ, U.S.D.J.


Dated: New York, New York
January 24, 2001

End of Document

Eric Sanders
EXHIBIT 5
ARREST Report - K16679709 Page 1 of 3


..,._ ,. Mew Nuitit: .eliti* Vorni - llitieve
at rowetli i •i• •
, nviiiitoiama azi'5*val1- ; - AiRvfetAftk;•;sy:
RECORD STATUS: NYSID ENTERD Arrest ID: K16679709 P
Arrest Location: FRONT OF 226 47 STREET Pct: 072
Arrest Date: 11-06-2016 Processing Type: ON utge Current Location of Perpetrator •
Time: 04:30:00 DCJS Fax Number: K0067802 Borough: Brooklyn
Secbc B Special Event Code:, NO - Type: .
Strip Search Conducted: NO DAT Number: 0 Location: 072 PRECINCT
Viper Initiated Arrest NO
Stop And Frisk NO Return Date: 0000-00-00
Serial ft 0000-000410000

COMPLAINTS: ilfuyestrt 1(16679709


Afair44201fina REPORT DATE RECORD STATUS OCCUR()FR OCCUllTIME . . . .. . . .
2018.072.08127 .2018-11-08 . VOIDED, 2018-1148 04:20

CHARGES: . Arnow: K16679709


CHARGE mom LAWCODE CLASS, Zen doors DasoinFropt
TOP No PL 221.05 V 0 1 UNLAVVPUL POSSESSION MARIHUANA
002 No PL 240.20 01 V 0 .1 DIS/CON:FIGHTNIOLENT BEHAVIOR

# Injured: ftFatalities:
Test Given: E.A.C: Reason Not Forfeit:
DWI Arrest from: 00 00

DETAILS: liArrest it Kin' 79109


AT TPO THE UNDERSIONEDOESERVED THE DEFT ON A PUBLIC STREET WITH INTENT TO CAUSE DISRUPTION, ACT IN A VIOLENT
MANNER TOWARDS PUBLIC. ACTIONS CAUSED ACROWD TO GATHER, WITH SEARCH INCIDENTS TO LAWFUL ARREST MARIJUANA
WAS RECOVEREDIN FRONT RIGHT POCKET OF DEFT. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION DEPT HAS AN OPEN WARRANT DOCKETS
2016QN021809

DEFENDANT: YORK, RICHARD J NYSIDIA Arrestti K16679709


NioldAKAIMaiden: Height SFT SIN Order Of Protection: NO

Sex: MALE Weight: 180 Issuing Court:
Docket ft •
Race: BLACK Eye Color: BROWN
Age: Hair Colon BLACK Expiration Date:

Date Of Birth: . Hair Length: NORMAL Relation to Victim: STRANGER
U.S. Citizen: YES Hair Style: AFRO Living together: NO
Place Of Birth: Skin Tone: DARK Can be Identified: YES
Is this person not NO Complexion: CLEAR
Proficient In Eli0118b?:
If Yes.Imitate Language:
Soc.Security
Accent NO
Occupation: UNKNOWN
Gang/Civom Affiliation: NO
NYS DriVer$
Identification ID: Lions° or Platt Name:
identification ft , Identifiers:
Lk/Permit
Physical Condition: NORMAL Type:
%Pe:
Drug Used: NONE Ur:Mar:nitNo: -

LOCATION ADDRESS CITY STATE1CNTRY MP APT/LZI


tt blM
HOME-PERMANENT
Phoneit and E-Mall Address:

littp://omniform.nypd.org/canniform/globalreportslwebFocualteportdo?1131F ex—VIEWA... 11/8/2016


ARREST Report - K16679709 Page 2 of 3

N.Y.C.HA. Resident: NO N.Y.C. Housing Employee: NO On Duty: NO


Development: N.Y.C. nano Employee: NO
PhysloalPoroe:USED
Gun:
Weapon Used/Possessed: NONE Make: Recovered: NO
Non-Pfrearm Weapon: Color: SerId Number Defaced:
Other Weapon Description: Caliber: Serial Number:
Wpe: •
Discharged: NO

Used Transit System: NO


Stollen Entered:
Tints Entered:
Metro Card Type:
Metro Card Used/Poses:
Card #
CRIMEDATA 12EMBA
MODUS OPERANDI UNKNOWN
ACTIONS TOWARD VICTIM UNK
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR SNEAKERS - WHITE
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR -T-SHIRT OR TANK TOP -BLACK
CLOTHING HEADGEAR -UNK UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING ACCESSORIES UNK • UNKNOWN COLOR
CHARACTERISTICS UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN
IMPERSONATION UNKNOWN

JUVENILE DATA: Arrest #~ K16679709


Juvenile Offender: Relative Notlffect Personal Recap:
Number a Priors: 0 Name:
SchoolMending: Phone Called:
Mother's Malden Name: Time Notified:

ASSOCIATED ARRESTS: Arrester K16679709

ARREST ID oomptAarr#

No Vehicles for Arrest #


DEFENDANTS CALLS: ArrestIA K19679709

PALLIS /4UMBER DIALED SAME -PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT NAME AS LIMO IN CELL.PHONE ftELATIQNSHIP CALL COMPLETED
REPUSED,REFUSED • REFUSED NO

INVOICES: Arrest ft K16679709

MIRE MEMO PROPJRTY TYPE MIK

ARRESTING OFFICER: PM ALEXANDR TILAN -Arrest fk K18679709


The Number: On Duty: YES
Force Used: NO
Other ID Oion-NYPD): In Uniform: YES
Type:
Shield: =1 Squad: A2
Chart 02 Reason:
Department NYPD
Officer Injured: NO
Command: 072 Primary Assignment

Arresting OWcer Name: Tax 5: Command: Agency:


POM TILAN, ALEXANDR 072 NYPD

http://otnniform.nypd.org/omniform/globalreports/webFocusReport.do?EBIF_00--VIEWA... 11/8/2016
ARREST Report - K16679709 Page 3 of 3

1
Oupervisor Approving: Text Convnand: Agency:
LT BOLGER JASON 072 NYPD

Report Entered by: Tex* Coninand: Agency:


PCiM TILAN, ALEXAND 072 NYPD
END OP ARREST REPORT
MUMS

http://ornniform.nypd.orgiomniforrn/globalreports/webFocusReport.doMF ex=VIEWA... 11/8/2016


Executea:3/2412017 02:41 - Executed by:NYPDFINEST
_ • . WEYER'''.
• .
-r E
. , New York City Police Department

CSummons •

SUMMONS - • •
. -
Date: 11/5/2016 Time: 04:30 Category Type: DISORDERLY •
CONDUCT
Summons Id: 4430617679 Prednot: 072 Bore: BROOKLYN
Patrol Bore: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT Addr Intersection.: NO . .
SOUTH •
Command Code: 072 . Crime: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Law: Penal Law Other Desc.: Section #: 240.20
. Return tNarrant ' Sub Division: Type Code: C .

Vehicle Type: •
Housing Name:' - ,. rHousing Boro: Off Dev. Flag:
-a
ADDRESS •
. Street #: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt/Suite 5:
Cross Street IntnIct Street Full Address: 226 47 STREET •
City: BROOKLYN State: NY • Zip Code:
Comer Occurrence: - Residence:
lime At Lao Precinct 072
TRANSIT • • -•
. Line Name: Precinct: ' Station Name: -
Bore: District: Post:
'
PERSON
• First Name: EILISSA.
Role: Respondent • Last Name: ORTIZ
DOB: Calc. Age: Reported Age: 0 . •
Sex: FEMALE Race: WHITE HISPANIC
H.A. Resident Gang AffiL: NO • Business Name:
1,0CATION ADDRESS STATEICNTRY ME laP
HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER
Officer Reported Name: MANNEY • Tax #: Command ft: 072 Rep. Agency:

Page 1of 2
ARREST Report - K16679701 Page 1 of 3

IT rOttriarg: DtemAtrivitmvat
il, . •
... OW l ittit . Lk 01%31

OgkojiLfgarnat. amp s?-kievni: • prAt‘t*t.


RECORD STATUS: NYSID ENTERD • Arrest ID: K16679701 - J
Arrest Location: FRONT.OF 225 47 STREET Pct: 072
Arrest Date: 11-06-2016 Processing Type: ON UNE Current Location of Perpetrator.
Time: 03:00:00 . DCJS Fax Number: K0087835 , Borough: Brooklyn .
. Sector: B Spada! Event Code: NO - Type:
Strip Search Conducted: NO DAT Number: 0 Location: 072 PRECINCT
Viper Initiated Arrest: NO
Stop And Frisk NO Return Date: 0000-03-00
Serial t 030040040000

COMPLAINTS: • • Arrest la K16679701


CCMPLAINT NUMBER REPORT DATE,.RECORD STATUS OCCUR DATE QCCUR TIME
20104720123 20184140 Valid, Initial Arrests made 201041.03 02:30

CHARGES: lAhest# K16079701
Nam ATTEMPT? LAW 0004 CLAMingCOUNTS, DESCRIPTIO
TOP No P1.100.23 M B 1 FALSE PERSONATION
002 No PL. 24020 01 V 0 1 DISMONAGHTMOLENT BEHAVIOR

If InJunsd: Adelina*:
DWI Arrest nun: 00 00 Test Given: BA.C: Reason Not Ante*

DETAILS: Arrest #: K16679701


INFORMED BY PO RODRIGUEZ, SHIETAII AT TIPIO PERP DID GET INTO A FIGHT CAUSING ALARM AND ANNOYANCE TO THE
PUBLIC. PERP DID MISREPRESENT H BY GIVING FALSE NAME. WHEN ASKED A SECOND TIME AFTER BEING TOLD GIVING A
FALSE NAME IS XPAISD. PERP DID MISREPRESENT HIMSELF AGAIN. '

DEPENDANT: RIVERA, JOSEPH NYSID O: IArreste K16679701


NicidAKA/Maiden: , Height 512T 10IN Order Of Protectlen: NO
Sex: MALE Weight: 180 Issuing court
Docket*
Race: BLACK
HISPANIC Eye Color: BROWN
Expiration Date:
Age: Hair Color: BLACK Relation to Victim: UNKNOWN/NONE
Date Of Birth: Hair Length: SHORT Llving together: NO
U.S. Citizen: YES Hair Style: CAESAR Can be Identified: NO
Place Of Brill: USA Sidn Toro: DARK
Is this person not Proficient In NO Compleclom CLEAR
If Yes. Indicate Language:
Accent NO Soc.8ecurity
0: Gang/Crew Affiliation: NO
Occupation: UNKNOWN Name:
Identification ID: Other
Identifiers:
Identification ft:
Physical Condition: ALCOHOL IA/Parma
TYPe:
Drug Used: NONE Lie/Pernik No:

IMMO ADDRESS sox STATE/CNTRY giE APT/ROOM=


HONISPERIVIANENT
kPhone # and E-Mail Address:
......7 6.-. .....

N.Y.C.HA. Resident: NO N.Y.C. Housing Employees On Duty: ,

http://omniform.nypd.org/omniform/globalreports/webFocusReport.d0B3IF ex=VIEWA... 11/8/2016


ARREST Report K16679701 Page 2 of 3
we

Development N.Y.C. Tmns Employee: .

Physical Pot:co:NONE
Used Transit System: NO
Station Entered:
Time Entered:
Metro Card Type:
Metro Card Usetroses:
Cardik

CRIME DATA DETAILS


MODUS OPERAND! UNKNOWN
ACTIONS TOWARD VICTIM UNK
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR -SWEAT SHIRT OR JOGGING JACKET -RED
CLOTHING. ACCESSORIES -JEANS -BLUE
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR -SNEAKERS RED
CLOTHING HEADGEAR - UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CHARACTERISTICS UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN
IMPERSONATION MALE

JUVENILE DATA: Arrest 01 K16679701


Juvenile Offender: Relative Notified: Personal Resiog:
Number Of Priors: 0 Name:
School Attending: Phone Called:
Mother's Maiden Name: Time Notified:
Omenw

ASSOCIATED ARRESTS: Arrests: K76679701


?ARM'ID COMPLAINTS

No Vehicles fOr Arrest #


DEFENDANTS CALLS: llArrestla K16679701
asua NUMBER DIALED NAN! -MOVE= BY DEFENDANT NAIVE AS LISTED IN ogu. PHONE RELATIONSHIP 041- COMPLETED
-- REFUSED,REFUSED REFUSED NO

INVOICES: NArrest# K16679701


itIVOICMPMOM pROPERYN TYPg VALUE

ARRESTING OFFICER: POM JOSE RUIZ Arrest SA K16879701

Tax Number: On Duty: YES


In Unifomx YES
Force Used: NO
OtherID(non-NYPD):
Type:
Shield: II. • Squad: A2
Reason:
Department: NYPD Chart 02
Officer Injured: NO
Command: 072 Primary Assignment

Arresting Officer Name: Tax 0: Command: Agency:


POMRUIZ, JOSE 072 NYPD

Supervisor Approving: • ex Command: •AgenCY:


LT BOLGER JASON 072 NYPD

Report Entered by: Tax 0: Command: Agency:


POMRUIZ, JOSE 072 NYPD

END OF ARREST REPORT


K18670701

http://omniformaypd.org/omaiform/globalreportslwebFocusReporLdo?1BIF 11/8/2016
. `•

car-42060U) •. • .
Co3npl7lbiOnformillike ' -
.- •. The People of..Thi Stole of Newlfork vs..

lbwFA4.414 laiY . • . Datoof
• rYI Wer\V 1 Aritt.A4.. •
• offibiohnkrommiNsosersapme4
* irompbromiumbiebduidaraa,kgfro
ehtirega--4-1 • ( ) • •• •
. •• :.
• courappenneebste (ftrafeltyy):
Plassotomptrataratlete froth:4 2_1 IL( 1 1 C o ' • riti 9:30 am.
• Theedurt appearance19eatIon: 0 moos - •
bIket
0 ,_ o item

Nis* .
_0
la. MIT
0 •
Mud
ailisletat dam
Cdabdettli aissigtOsit Cesardfiteesceskr Cambiccat Ciglidecon
Elikattaitithet Sta 4141St &mow
r -z
-...
• t Ornis OA*
Q11101%2 OMAN& f ..D3 •
, Oks.6441sibtatodo Ofitiore:5311.
, basso ftwissesoofiW) ro t, vakThe mos . 'Yttar. '

The PerieiDesekbedAbove IF Charged as Follows: •
.‘•:. • Title 0.ffesse:
.abi ..; - 'ton OF nnarko,A 0.
i4 • oki*4) -
0'4 '0 4 il• 116 S .
iv: *: Pimp ofOats**
• _ _g ..Z.,t;. LP . Sq- • •!!)/ Z •
,..
45 1014adortof Sultstetlat I Yu. Prjr.1121
• •Soolko % . Otr • 01171111 1. •
FlottplAllagadatq VscribshowthsejansewascanattatOReartpkwaying):
• Arlr AP n ••31iN....- %.)nrilito k5 f... .„,...A
krVistyp,-.A-ei +NSA- ci.0.44-- iY)
. • - pti !t ce 4.41On • of &LA.- a rvlq14
(A./ar. c wt., e-cm}-c;fl t r ..3
s,...
, . WV-1- Ic." sk
i:.. •
' matedkw tie:moo&kistmtatt:
.
r..----.-:—
-
• '
.. A •
,, obstoedtheeptemissimofthatigetidoemdbestbaboststoottainvolobtobistopiabliktitas a
, & - Alitiedsintiacrapapt to tecibaTIOAVordtqatilLavanitattltrld5pitallycam
‘. PAitinedatcd 1ItankfflullassatontofCompliitmet 1DaltiMitmed
di ir . .01•Ithr...-1 1 gi:“ .°‘----1 Ir ircbtil.
essesieessz, ..

.K),fos, oidenitAL , ''Crtrx...' ! '.I . ,
. • -

- •.
Executech3/24/2017 0227 • 'Executed br.NYPDFINEST
1MEYERM

. , New York City Police Department r .


CSummons .
• .
SUMMONS
Date: 11/6/2018 lime: 04:30 Category Type: MARIJUANA .
Summons id: 4430817698, Precinet 072 , Boro: BROOKLYN
Patrol Boro: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jurisdiction: N.Y. POUCE DEPT Addr intersection.: NO
SOUTH
Command Code: 072 Crime: MARIJUANA, POSSESSION OF
Law Penal Law • Other Dena: Section ff: 221.05
Return Warrant: ' Sub Division: Type Code: C
Vehicle Type: • .
Housing Name: Housing Bono: Off Dev. Flag:
ADDRESS • •
Street #: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt./Suthe 5:
Cross Street intent Street Full Address: 225 47 STREET;
City; BROOKLYN State: NY . Zip Code:
• Corner. • Occurrence: Residence:
Time At Loa: Precinct: 072 •
TRANSIT • •
Line Name: Precinct Station Name:
. • Boro: - District: • Post:

_PERSON .
Role: Respondent . - Last Name: MITCHELL Rol Name: MICHE •
' DOB: Cala. Age.; 21 Reported Age: 0
. Sex FEMALE Race: BLACK . •
H.A. Resident: • . Gang Affil.: NO Business Name:
tocatioR ADDRESS . OTATE/CIITRY ztE APT/ROAM
HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER
Officer Reported Name: MANNEY Tax fk Command It: 072 Rep. Agency:

Pagel of 2
135111,1toberebke w1E9kiedifirtimmik0 liamakineWahlualtuit4 r ' v
. ,. .• s • •• •
Court Appearance Date (nnnaryy): ....
(Enna*coactWere desk tntavip Z.. / i
"I at 9:30 pi:,
Thicairk appeatranceImam 0 okei do .

. ... • rtaod;•
I lo ......1t ming*
o =
o .
• opt
IDLitemettrater sift' VOW •

Sit in BM &a- &t ax

rub,
Omni ' eh*

. :A. rA .Wimm/bih• 8As=


81
Biro behosei. • AVIV Wm ' •
-
' • -
Tie,Pewit DaserlbegiAboie is Charged as Falows:
Tffie of Menlo: ' ' '
pu c ip 6 ...-Nit JAW:: - , e.Vi
. .,
limeA ktonigkimol . MO/ •
- 4543-ti A ,
PI= of Ontinvois . • q'
0. 22-Si7 Y7, s.- -72 .
Ise •IntAridionof • vn. .Alk t at Otba . •
804 4 2.1-16 47 -0 (..1. ) •• ._ ❑0 CI a o - •
a
.
. NodAvirrthoto4t_ booat
. viir cogai ll" :4117 446
—vi-: • cb444- ap . ril owe_... sifek_A- a "ra-ece.
' •

4J.1 t ivre,A.- io ....cpc-irfe._. atSfUvivw,.


OW' • oc. • vilji.C.4- 44--thrtai -kIj . pe16.ww--
310L;Screi orti-z.. irrZSCk . Pett. octioi,h
. - QmtAte;_l A eitit,,ot . ?to 3e.L4- -
.13etbadipc4listypusesetelasetbstaate): e

Samigin
ceir all
e rtscaenot
1112gaI rait" serion2Mftrdat
a it= ild"Iteinampfew:4bleas I
CinvI PUI1N mePdated . Rai:1;mspurnoroscaputergi Ddiiiamed. -
M. Po •.(_,......,-.....
' 'trip116.
• Cods; ' •
i ..- • • ,...4 • s 1
,
' i1 4/)1170 - 01VGINAL, . i -ea- •
Executeit3/2A/2017 02:39 Executed by:NYPDFIli
Rair
NEVE

New York City Police Department


CSummona

sumpoNp
Date: 11/8/2016 Time: 04:30 Category Type: DISORDERLY
.CONDUCT
Summons Id: 4430817882 Precinct: 072 Bono: BROOKLYN
Patrol Boro: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jude*lion: N.Y. POLICE DEPT Addr intersection.: NO
SOUTH
Command Code: 072 Crime: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Law: Penal Law Other Desc.: Section ff; 240.20 .
Return Warrant Sub Division: Type Code: C
Vehicle Type:
• Housing Name: Housing Bora: Off Day. Flag:

ADDRESS
Street #: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt/Suite #:
Cross Street Inked Street: Full Address: 225 47 STREET
City: BROOKLYN ; State: NY ' Zip Code:
Comer: OcoUrrence: Residence:
lime At Loa' Precinct 072
TRANSIT
Line Name: Precinct Station Name:
Boro: District: Post
PERSON
Role: Respondent Lest Name: MITCHELL First Name: MICHE
DOB: • Cato. Age: 21 • Reported Age: 0
Sex: FEMALE Race: BLACK
H.A. Resident: Gang Affil.: NO Business Name:
LOCATION ADDRESS Dire STATE/CtITRY APT/ROOM
HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER
Officer Reported Name: MANNEY Tax 0: Coinmend#: 072 • Rep. Agency:

Page 1 of 2
v
Executed:3/24/2017 0222 Executed bytlYPDFINEST
\MEYER..

New York City Police Department


CSummons

BUMPKINS
Date: 11/26/2016 Time: 03:45 Category. Type: DISORDERLY
CONDUCT
Summons Id: 4429323752 Precinct 072 Boro: BROOKLYN
Patrol Boro: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT Addr Intersection.: NO
SOUTH
Command Code: 072 Crime: DISORDERLY CONDUCT
Law: Penal Law Other Dew.: Section *: 24020
Return Warrant Sub Division: Type Cafe: C
Vehicle Type:
Housing Name: Housing Boro: Off Dev. Flag:
g. -
ADDRESS •
Street*: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt./Suite 5:
Cross Street: Inked Street Full Address: 225.47 STREET
• City: BROOKLYN State: NY Zip Code:
Comer: Occurrence: Residence:
Time At Loc: Precinct 072
TRANSIT
Line Name: Precinct Station Name:

Bore: District: Post
PERSON
Role: Respondent Last Name: SHANEIKA First Name: ELLIS
DOB: Cale. Age: 22 Reported Ago: 0
Sex FEMALE Race: BLACK -
H.A. Resident Gang AR.: NO Business Name:
LOCATION. ADDRESS STATEJoN1RY TIE
HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER
Officer Reported Name: RASHEVSKIY Tax it Command if: 072 Rep- Niency:

Page 1 or 2
. ARREST Report -1(16685374 Page 1 of 3
r
- •.„,•
*ow
.- Aylk IC; . sk VeAktio`' * 1ft*vw4rimwig*.
. Ommiit9iserw: Silr,sfOigto,R, -, .:44.f.RAas.4.
. .
RECORD STATUS: NYSID ENTERD Arrest ID: K16585374 - R .
Arrest Location: FRONT OF 225 47 STREET Pct: 072
Arrest Date: 12-02-2016 Pig Type: COMMUNITY COURT Current Location of Perpetrator
Time: 03:17:00 DC.IS Fax Number: KM002023 Borough: Brooklyn
Sector: B Special Event Code: NO - . Type
Strip Search Concluctet NO . DAT Number: 0 Location: 072 PRECINCT
Viper Initiated Arrest NO •
Stop And Frisk NO Return Date: 0000.00.00 •
Serial 5: 000040040000
/OM" /MN_ I. *AIIIII,Mk _ 1. lark I 4 I eur - 1 i I. tr v I.. ,_..-- ,_re" - _..., 1~1 VP& 1 1 _l_i .-Ar vtruirrA nit-

ARRESt DATA - COMPLAINT NOT REQUIRED , _


.....„
Jurisdiction: NYPD NYC School SafetyDote. NYC Transitbete: '
Premises: OTHER On School Property: Station:
Location iMthln: OTHER School Type: Um*
Occur.Daterrime: 2018-I2.02 -03:17 School Nun: Location:

NYCHeroin Development:, School blame:
Oirtnse Laos on: FRONT OF 226 47 STREET Borough: BROOKLYN

CHARGES: ' . tArrest it: K16686374

21AffillMister ismsmog gSS itEg COUNTS DESCRIPTION .


TOP ' No PL 224.06 V 0 I UNLAVVFOL POSSESSION MARIHUANA
#02 No PL 24020 07 V 0 1 DIS CON: CREATE HAZARDOUS COND
• _ _ _ _ __ _. _ . i —
DWI Arrest from: Injured: # Mantles: 1 Test Given: B.A.C: Reason Not Forfeit:
00 00

DETAILS: 'Arrest114 K16685374 .


AT T/P/0 DEPTRECKLESSLY ENGAGED IN ERATIC/DANGEROUNTHREATENING BEHAVIOR CAUSINGPUBLIC ALARMIANNOYANCE.
DEFT CREATED A HAZARDOUS CONDITION. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION DEFT HAS WARRANT (DOCKEITVOlOSK024624. SILA,
SMALL PLASTIC WRAP OF MARIJUANARECOVERED FROM DEFT RIGHT RIGHT POCKET.DEFT STATED PRIOR TO INCIDENT THAT HE
WAS GOING TO GET A FIREARM. •
,r-
DEFENDANT: ROBINSON, DEVON gNYSID#r Arrest* K16685374

NicIOAKNMakien: Height EFT liN . Order Of Protection: NO
Sex MALE Weight 170 (Mktg Court
Race: BLACK Eye Color: BROWN Docket #: •
Age: 25 Hair Color: BLACK Expiration Date: •
Date OfRift Hair Length: SHORT Relation to Victim: UNKNOWN/NONE
CLOSE LMng together. NO
U.S. Citizen: YES Hair Style: ouT
Can be Identified: NO
Piece Of Birth: NEW YORK Skin Tone: DARK .
le tile person not NO Complexion: BLOTCHY
Proficient In English?:
If Yes,Indicate
Language:
Accent Na Soc.Becurity
Occupation: NONE GangfCrew AMilation: NO
*
identification ID: NY3 MR' Nen-Cid/ler Name:
identifiers:
identification ft:
Physical Condition: IN.J.R.MA. LIc/Pemit
Type:

http://omniformaypd.org/omniform/globalreports/webFocusReport.doffBIF ex----VJEWA... 12/2/2016


*MST Report -.K16685374 Page 2 of 3

Drug Used: NONE LW/Pena


No:
mum MEM citx suratarrEv gE APT/ROONt Eat
HOME-PERMANENT 111. .
Phone # and E-Niall Addiess: CELL:
N.Y.C.H.A. Resident: NO N.Y.C. Housing Employee: NO On Duty: NO
Development N.Y.C. Transit Employee: NO

Physical Form:NONE
Gurc
Weapon Used/Possessed: NONE Make: Recovered:
Non-Firearm Weapon: Color: Serial Number Defaced:
Other Weapon Description: Caliber: Serial Number:
Type:
Discharged: NO

Used Transit System: NO


Station Entered:
Time Entered:
Metre Card Type:
Motto Card Used/Poses:
-Caw #:
CRIME DATA wraps
STATEMENTS MADE I NEED TO GET OUT OF HERE.
MODUS OPERANDI UNKNOWN
MODUS OPERANDI DISCON
ACTIONS TOWARD VICTIM UNK
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR -SWEAT SHIRT OR JOGGING JACKET -BLACK
CLOTHING ACCESSORIES -JEANS -BLACK
CLOTHING HEADGEAR - UNK - UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR - UNK - UNKNOWN COLOR
CHARACTERISTICS UPS
CHARACTERISTICS NOSE UNUSUAL
BODY MARKS • -UNKNOWN
IMPERSONATION UNKNOWN

JUVENILE DATA: Arrest #: K1668S374


AMMO Offender: Relative Notified: Personal Recog:
Number Of Priors: 0 Name:
School Attending: Phone Called:
Mothers Malden Name: Time Notified:

ASSOCIATED ARRESTS: Arrest #: K16685374


Map= CONTI-ANT #

No Vehicles for Arrest #


DEFENDANTS CALLS: Arrest d: K16686374
cALL # NUMBER DIALED NAME ...PROVIDED BY DEFENDANTMARNE AE LISTED IN CELL PHONE p.ELATIONSHIP CAM COMPLETED
1 .- REFUSED,REFIJSED REFUSED NO
,...__
INVOICES: Arrest 0: K16685374
INVOICE* COMMAND PROPERTY TYPE VALUE
...111111111MM

ARRESTING OFFICER: POW JOHN LATTANZIO


f reesia K16885374

http://omniform.nypd.org/omniform/globalreports/webFocusReport.donBIF ex=VIEWA... 12/2/2016


.ARREST Report - K16685374 Page 3 of 3

Tax Number. On Duty: YES Force Used: NO


Other ID (non•NYPD): In Uniform: YES TyPe:
• Shield: II. Squad: A2 Reason:
Department NYPD Chart: 02 Officer Infured: NO
Command: 072 Primary A00188Mant

/Testing Officer Name: Tax*: Command: AgencY:


PON LATTANZIO, JOHN 072 NYPD

SupervIsorApprovin0: Tax 8: Dormant!: AftemrY:


LT BOLGER JASON 072 NYPD

Report Entered by: Tax#: Command: . Agency:


POM LATTANZIO, JOHN NYPD
END OP ARREST REPORT
Itt8888874

http://omniform.nypd.orgtomniform/globalreports/webFocusRepoitdaBiFex—VIEWA... 12/2/2016
'Executed:3/24/2017 02:08 Executed by.NYF'
EYEDFINEST
., , • M R=
F.
...._ .
CI .` [ +r 't b ,

. •
,
r j• , ' to -,

i New York City Police Department I ,? )

Aided Report • .
AIDED INFORMATION • • . '
Aided Report //: 02209 Record Create Date: 12120/2016
Report Date:12/17/2016 .. •
Report Precinct: 072
Report lime: 04:10 • MOS Flag: NO •
Ocounence Address: 225 47 STREET. Occurrence Borough: PATROL BORO BKLYN SOUTH
Intersecting Street Occurrence Precinct 072
Cross Street 2AVENUE Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT

Location Of Occurrence: FRONT OF Subway Line: N
. ,
VICTAVI ' • . .
Name: DEVANTE MCLEOD Padignie: M//22 • •
Address: Birth Date:
Homeless: NO . Uncareci For: NO
Phone Number: • Emotionally Disturbed: NO
Emotionally. Disturbed Des=
NOTIFIED • • . .•
• •
Date: lime:

Name: Relation to Victim: -
Address: • Phone Number:
AIDED DETAILS • •
Aided Category: SICK/INJURED PERSON • . . ACR#: RMP#3227
Aided Refused: PCR#: RIM/3227 •
City Involved: BROOKLYN Agency: 072
Removed To: 7126 Mouth to Mouth: NO
Facility Type: 1 Resuscitated: NO
Reated By: . Spray Used: NO . •
.
Report Code: • MSG Reports:
Narrativei AT T/P/O, AIDED APPROACHED POLICE, COMPLAINING OF DIFFICULTY BREATHING. EMS WAS CALLED BY AIDED. AIDED LOST
CONSCIOUSNESS, AT WHICH POINTAIDED WAS TAKEN TO LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER IN BACK OF RMP#3227. AIDED WAS
CONSCIOUS, WHEN HE ARRIVED AT LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER.
REPORTING OFFICER • • • .
Name: JOSE RUM Command: 072 .

Pagel 012 •
Executed:*4/2017 00:23 • . Executed by:NYP
EY DFINEST
VO ERIMI
.
• ' - T. 1
New York City Police Department •
Aided Report
, .
AIDED INFORMATION
Aided Report #: 00107 • Record Create Date: 1/15/2017
Report Date: 1/15/2017 • Report Precinct 072 •
Report Time: 04:40 • MOS Flag: NO •
Occurrence Address: 225 47 STREET . Occurrence Borough: PATROL BORO BKLYN SOUTH
Intersecting Street OccurrenCe Precinct 072
Cross Street: 2.AVENUE . Jurisdiction: N.Y. POUCE DEPT
Location Of Occurrence: FRONT OF - Subway Line:N
VICTIM • •
Name: JAMALI MORRIS • Pedigree: M/!23
Address: • Birth Date: •
Homeless: NO • Unwed Fon NO
Phone Number; Emotionally Diskirbed: U •
. . Emotionally Disturbed Dew:

NOTIFIED
Date: . . • • Time:
Name: JONATHAN JAMES Relation to Victim: FRIEND
Address: • Phone Number:
AIDED DETAILS • - •
Aided Category: SICK/INJURED PERSON ACRit 90038239 .
Aided Refused: PoR#: 90038239
City Involved: BROOKLYN Agency: 072
Removed To: 7126 • Mouth to Mouth: NO
1
Facility lype:. Resusokated: NO .
.
Treated By: Spray Used: NO
Report Code: Me Reports: .
.
Narrative: AT T/P/0 AIDED WAS HIGHLY INTOXICATED. REMOVED TO LMC. NO INJURIES. • -
REPORTING OFFICER
Name: CHAD IVERSEN ' Command: 072 •

Page 1of 2
exe0utori0/24/2017 00:51 • Executed by:NYPDFINEST
IMEVER11.1
. .
1 1 F r i1 f
I . .
New York City Police Department ,...,
CSummons •
. •• ,
sown
Date: 1/29/2017 ' Tenet 0422 Category Type: DISORDERLY
. CONDUCT
• Summons Id: 4434684713 . Precinct: 072 Boro: BROOKLYN
Patrol Boro: PATROL BORO BKLYN - Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT Addr Intersection.: YES
SOUTH
Command Code: 072 Crime: DISCON: FIGHTING
Law: Penal Law Other Desc.: Section ft: 240.20-1 •
Return Warrant Sub Division:' . Type Code: C
Vehlde Type: • -
Housing Name: Housing Boro: • Off Dee. Flag:
ADDRESS
Street It: Street Name: ' Apf./Sule #:
Cross Street 2 AVENUE • Intro:4 Street: 47 STREET Full Address: 47 STREET && 2
AVENUE
City: BROOKLYN State: NY Zip Code:
Corner. Occurrence: Residence:
Time At Lod Prednch 072
TRANSIT . . .
Me Name: • Precinct Station Name:
' Bore: • District Post:
PERSON
Role: Respondent Last Name: BROWN First Name: NADINE •
DOB: Cala. Age: 25 Reported Age: 0 .
Sex: FEMALE Race: BLACK
HA. Resident Gang AMU NO Business Name:

LOCATION ADDRESS STATE/CNTRY zie APT/ROOM
HOME-PERMANENT

[
OFFICER
Officer Reported Name: CHEEMA . Tax it: Command*: 072 Rep. Agency:

• Page 1 of 2
thiecuted:313/2017 2300 Executed by:NYPDFINEST
MEYERIIIE
. .. . .
fl PIJ-' l
tj New York City Police Department • s
CSummons
• ..
SUMMONS . ' •
' Date: 2119/2017 . Time: 03A0 .Category Type: ALCOHOL
Summons id: 4434584340 Precinct 072 Born: BROOKLYN
Patrol Boro: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT . Addr Intersection.: NO
SOUTH • •
Command Code: 072 • Crime: CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL
Law: Administrative Code . Otter Doss.: . Seotion ft: 10.125
Return Warrant Sub Division: . Type Code: C
Vehicle Type:
Housing Name: • Housing Boro: Off Dm Flag:
ADDRESS • .
Street #: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt./Suite it:
Cross Street: Intriset Street • RE Address: 22647 STREET
City: BROOKLYN Siete: NY Zip Code:
Corner: Occurrence: Residence:
Time At Loo: • Precinct: 072
TRANSIT . • ' -
Line Name: Precinct: • Station Name:
- . Post
Boro: • District
PERSON •
Role: Respondent Last Nair*: STROY . First Name: KEITH ISAAC
DOB: Cala. Age: 34 • Reported Age: 0
Sex MALE Race: BLACK .
H.A.Resident . Gang AMU NO Business Name: •
1.006,TION APDRESS Oa STATEJCNTRY Zia AP.TiROotk
,HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER .
Officer Reported Name: FRAGOSO Taxi: • .Command #: 072 Rep. Agency: .
Nem lithrritt C-1,,. • INtalq.* antaiaOlie . flit
. .
.(tmntitei4kimy ,•$ Ote:mk .,.• .0:•QamiliwiinyttAt,
. •
,
Report Cmd Jurisdiction: Reoord Statue: Complaint fk No Other Legacy No Other
072 N.V. POLICE DEPT • Final, No Arrests 201.7072- Blue Versions Complaint '
MN • Revisions

Occurrence INSIDE OF 225 NYC Parks Dept. Property Precinct 072


Location: 47 STREET Did this offense occur on NYC NO Seaton B
Name Of Premise: LUST . • Parka Dept. Property? Beat S
Premises Type: BAR/NIGHT CLUB Command: Post:
Looatlon Within COMMERCIAL NYC Parks Dept. Property Name:
Premise: ESTABUSH
Visible By Patrol?: NO

Occurrence From: 2017-02-25.04:00 SATURDAY Aided # 000000452 '


Osourrencathru: 2017-02-2S 16:00 Accident #
Reported: 2017-03-05 12:45 0.C.C.B.#

Complaint Received: WALK-IN

Classification: ASSAULT Case Status: OPEN


Attempted/Completed: COMPLETED , Unit Referred To: P.D.U.
Most Serious Offense MISDEMEANOR Clearanoe Code:
is: fk 0
PD Cale: 101 ASSAULTS Clearance Arrest id:
PL. Simeon; 12000 Clearance. AO Cmd:
344 ASSAULTS a RELATED File fa 38 '
Keyoode: oppraNses
Prints Requested? NO

Is This Related To Step And Frisk Report SOF Number: Was The Victim's Personal The Victim's Personal
NO 0000-000-00000 Inkinmdion Taken Or Information Used To Commit A
Possessed? Crime? .
NO NO

Gang Related? OMB ROD Log fit Name Of Gam Child Abuse Suspected? -
,NO NO

I
DIR Required?
NO
If Burolarv:
Child In Common?
NO

Alan= it Arson:
intimate Relationship?
NO •

Taxi Robbery:
Forced Entry? Bypassed? Structure: • Partition Present:
Structure: Comp Responded?: 000epred7: Amber Stress Light Activated:
Entry Method: Company Damage by: Method of Conveyance:
Name/Phone:
Entry Location: Location of Pickup:
Wiml •

,
Crime Prevention
Survey Requested?:
Complaint/Reporter
Present?:

SuPervlsor On Some -Rank / Name/ Canvas Conduoted: Translating, used):


Command : NO
NARRATIVE:
AT TPO CV STATES AFTER TRYING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT AT LUST NIGHT CLUB, PERP DIDINTENTIONALLY GRAB CV BY HER SHIRT
AND THROWCROSS THE ROOM. CV STATES SHE LANDED ON THE FLOOR, INJURYING HER BACK AND WRIST . CV THEN WENT TO
INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER WHERE SHE WAS TREATED.

No NYC TRANSIT Data for Complaint # 2017-072-01256 •


Total Victims: if----- Total Witnesses: — 11 Total Reporters: II Total Wanted:
i . II 0 II - 0 1
II -
Name: Complaint*
1/1071111:1P.1 off BOLDEN,11FFANY L . 2017-072-01256
NicktAKAIMaiden: Gang/Crew Affiliation: NO
UMOS: NO • Name:
' Sex/Type: FEMALE . Identifiers:
• • . Race: BLACK
: Age: 31 ..
Date Of Birth: -
Disabled? NO IMII View Photo: NO
Is this person not Proficient In English?: NO Will Prosebute: YES
if Yes, indicate Language: • Notified Of Crime we,
N.Y.O.H.A Resident? NO • Victim Comp. Law:
is Victim fearful for their safety / fife? NO • .
Escalating violence / abuse by suspect? NO •
Were prior D1R's prepared for CN? NO •

1•246.140. MEM 11JU STATE/COUNTRY NZ APTIROOM


HOME-PERMANENT
Phone* HOME: Not Provided/Unavallable CELL: BUSINESS:Not Provided/Unavallable BEEPER: Not ProvIdeciltiriavallable
E-MAIL: Not Provided/Unavallable - .
Action against Victim: Actions Of Victim Prior To incident . •
AT WORK •
Victim Of Similar Incident: If Yes, When AM Where
NO •
Name: Complaint* Arrested: •
WANTED: #1 of 1 •N 2017-072-01256 NO .
, RICH
NM/AKA/Maiden: ' Height: liFTSIN Order Of Protection: NO
Sex: MALE Weight: MO issuing Court:

Race: WHITE Eye Colon . Docket th
Age: Hair Colon• Expiration Date:
Date of Birth: UNKNOWN Hair Length: Order of Protection Violated?
U.S. Chinn: . Does Suspect abuse Drugs /Alcohol? NO
Halr Style: UNKNOWN
Place Of Birth: Suspect threatened /attempted suicide? NO
Skin Tone: UNKN
Is this person not Proffolent in English?: NO Complexion: UNKNOWNIs the suspect Parole/ Probation? NO
If Yes, Indicate Language: Relation to Victim: EMPLOYER
Accent: NO . &S.* 0 Living together: NO •
Oen be Identified: YES
. .
Gang/Crew Affiliation: NO •
.
• Name:
' • Identifiers:
• •
LWOW MN= 2.12L STATE/COUNTRY ZIP APT/ROOM HOW LONG? .YES. POT • •
HONM-PERNIANENT 225 47 STREET BROOKLYN NEWYORK .
!Phone* HOME: - - CELL: - - BUSINESS: --BEEPER: -- E4VIAIL: 1
N.Y.O.H.A. Resident: NO N.Y.C. Housing Employee: On Duty: •
Development: N.Y.C. Transit Employe*:
-
'Physical Foree:USED .. •

Used Transit System:


Station Entered: - .
Time Entered: .
Metro Card Type:
Metro Card Used1Posee: •
Card Pk • •

CRIME DATA 81EraIle%


MODUS OPERANDI UNKNOWN
ACTIONS TOWARD VICTIM UNK
.
CLOTHING • HEADGEAR -UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING FOOT'WEAR -UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR -UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING ACCESSORIES -UNK -UNPIP101M4 COLOR
CHARACTERISTICS UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN I
IMPERSONATION UNKNOWN . .

No IMEl Data for Coinplaint #.• 2017-072-01256


• "
IRepordnofinvettigithig M.D.S. Name: Tax* Command: RePAS0nor
POP TAMS NACPX • • 072 POT NYPD

Sispervlsor Approving Name: Tax* Command: RepAgeney:
SOT REDMOND THOMAS 072 POT NYPD

Complaint Report Entered By: TAutd: JCommend:' RepAgenoy:


PAA RIM • • 072 POT NYPD

St noff Supervisor Name: Mx M command: Rep.Agenoy:


SOT REDMOND . 072 POT NYPD

END OP COMPLAINT REPORT .


# 2017-072-01200
Executed:3/24/2017 00:28 • • Executed, by:NYPD
RIN
1MEYE

I F' -i`r ri ,,i , . R .

New York City Police DepartOrient


Aided Report . •
AIDED INFORMATION

Aided Rep'ort #: 00452 . •• • Record Create Date: 3/7/2017
Report Date: 2/26/2017 ' Report Precinct: 072 •
Report Time: 04:00 MOS Flag: NO • -

Oocurrence Address: 225 47 STREET Occurrence Borough: PATROL poRo BKLYN SOUTH
Intersecting Street: OccurrencePrecinct 072 •
Cross Street 2 AVENUE Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT
Location Of Occurrence: INSIDE OF Subway Line: N •
VICTIM . .
.

Name: TIFFANY BOLDEN Pedigree: F/ /31
Address: Birth Date: •
Homeless: NO Uncured For: NO
Phone Number: Emotionally Disturbed: NO
. Emotionally Disturbed Dew:
NOTIFIED
Date: • Time:
Name: - Relation to Victim:
Address: Phone Number:
• .
AIDED DETAILS
Aided Category: SICK/INJURED PERSON ACR#:
Aided Refused: YES PCR #:
City Involved: BROOKLYN Agency: 072
Removed To: NOT APPLICABLE Mouth to Mouth: NO • •
Facility 'Type: Resuscitated: NO • •
Treated By: Spray Used: NO
Report Code: COMP kftledReporte:
Narrative: CV STATES WHILE AT WORK TRYING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT. THE MANGER INTERFEARED AND GRABBED HER AND THREW -
HERE ACROSS THE ROOM CAUSING INJURY TO HER WRIST AND BACK. .
REPORTING OFFICER , •
Name: NAOMI TATIS • Command: 072

Paget of 2
Executed:3/14/2017 14:19 Executed by:NYPDRIii
udiEyE
. .
-
• • -4,-
— New York City Police Department Tq. -I
. Complaint Report
- -

Report Cmd: - Jurisdiction: Record Status: Complaint ft: . ..
072 N.Y. POLICE DEPT FINAL, NO ARRESTS 2017-072-001256-99 •
- • _ ._ .
Occur Location: 225 47 STREET , 3 AVENUE && 2 AVENUE • - Precinct 072
Name of Premises: LUST Sector: -B
Premises Type: BARJNIGHT CLUB Beat 5 '
Location Within Premise: COMMERCIAL ESTABUSHMENT . . . Post: •
. ..
• : Vises By Patrol: NO . • Aided 41: 452

Occurrence From: 212512017 04:00 • Accident 8: 0

Occurrence To: 2/28/201715:00 Case Status: OPEN
Reported: 3/5/201712:45 - Unit Referred To: P.D.U.
Created: W7/20171025 Clearance Cods:
Complaint Received: WALK-IN Log/Case it 0
Classification: ASSAULT • Rle it 38
Attempted/Completed: COMPLETED . Prints Requested NO -
Most Serious Offense is: ASSAULT 3 & RELATED OFFENSES PD Code: ASSAULT 3
Keynode: ASSAULT 3 & RELATED OFFENSES . PL Section: 12000
Gang Related? ' Gang Intel Loge: Name of Gang: ' DIR Required? Chid Abuse Suspected?
NO NO NO .
MEI - I. - - - - - -,•• -
__„ __ ._,, - -- , -- - _
-
If BIN9leiY: ' Alarm: . If Arson: .NO
Forced Entry? • Bypassed? Structure:
Structure: • Comp Responded: Occupied?

Entry Method: Company Name/Phone: • ' Damns by.
Entry Location Crime Prevention Survey • .
. . Requested? •
Supervisor on Scene • RarddName/Comment Canvas Conducted: ' Interpreter (If used): •
NO NO . •
Original Narrative: -
AT TPO CV STATES AFTER TRYING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT AT LUST NIGHT CLUB, PERP DIDINTENTIONALLY GRAB CV BY HER SHIRT AND
THROW CROSS THE ROOM. CV STATES SHE LANDED ON THE FLOOR. INJURYING HER BACKAND WRIST . CV THEN WENT TO
INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER WHERE SITE WAS TREATED. .
Total Victims: Total Witnesses: Tote] Reporters: . Total Wanted: ii
. • 1 0 -0 1
VICTIM: #1 Of 1 Name:BOLDEN,TIFFANY 'Complaint ft: 2017-072-001286-99
14IoklAM/Maiden: • Gang Affillanort NO .
SendType: FEMALE Name: •
Race: BLACK ' identifiers:
Age: 31 WM View Photo: NO
Date of Birth: Will Prosecute: YES
Disabled? NO Notified of Crime:
Need Interpreter: NO Victim Comp. Law:
• ' 1-arguatien
N.Y.C.H.A. Resident NO •
LOCATION ADDRESS rda STATE/CNTRY gfe &Liar Kat
HOME-PERMANENT
Phone It CELL
Aden Against Victim: Actions of Victim Prior to AT WORK
Incident .
Victim of Similar incident NO If Yes, When and Where:
SUSPECT: #1 011 IName:,RICH • 'Complaint #: 2017-072-001266-99
NloWAKA/Malden: Height 5'8

Sex/Type: MALE Weight 250 '
Race: WHITE • Has Accent NO
Age: 0 Hair Style: UNKNOWN
Sidra Tone; UNKN Hair Color:

Compkadom UNKNOWN Hair Length .
Eye Colin Victim and Suspect Living Together: NO
Date of Birth: . Victim Cart Identity SuspeCt: YES
Need interpreter: NO Victim States Suspect Is: EMPLOYER
Language'. Gang Affiliation: NO •
N.Y.C.H.A. Resident NO Name: • •
Development • NO Identifiers:
' N.Y.C.H.A. Employee: NO Used SUbway System: No
On Duty: Station Entered and Time:
.
N.Y.C. Transit Employee: NO • Metro Card:
On Duty: . Metro Card Type: •
1006'O, ADDRESS pirc STATE/CNTRY ze. APT/ROOM
HOME-PERMANENT 226 47 STREET . BROOKLYN NY • .
Phone #: . -
• •
WEAPON . GUN • •
• Used/Possessed:: Gun Type: GunModel:
Gun Caliber: • Gun Make:

. . Gun Cobr: Gun Discharge* ••
CRIME UTA • •
.. DETAIL
CATEGORY I.Y.E =III pEsci3iPTioN
CLOTHING ACCESSORIES ' UNK
CLOTHING . FOOTWEAR UNK
CLOTHING HEADGEAR ' UNK
CLOTHING . OUTERWEAR - • . UNK
IMPERSONATION UNKNOWN
MODUS OPERANDI UNKNOWN
SCARStrATTOOS UNKNOWN
UNUSUAL PHYSICAL UNKNOWN
CHARACTERISTI '

ACTION TOWARD VICTIM UNK ' •
.
PROPERTY: • • Complaint #:•2017-072-001268-90. .

Lost/Stolen/Found: Bustness/PersonallSotlx .. Owner Identification Num:


. .

,1.1134.. 4 1124. , _ Wei AEON qemeast .11144sEbaig 044annanangt


ARRESTS: . IComplaint #: 2017-072-001266-99
AMU= STATUS DEFENDANT NAME MX BAS1g gS1E ARREST DATE
Officer Reported Name:TATIS NAOMI TaxMIN Command #:072 Rep. Agenfro •
Officer Supervisor Name:REOMOND THOMAS . Taxi= Command 11:072 Rep. Agency:0 .
Enterer Natne:RIAJ - Tax #011 Command #:072 RV- AgersaY:0
Approving Supervisor Name:REDMONO Text.. Command #:072 Rep. Agency:0
$.•••
• "
onplOttikforpffkli..•

. • •-•c.- E
Executel3/24/2017 00:30 Executed by:NYPDF NEST
. EligYE
, ,CE . . • . ,-, , ,
-E-; •J,1•,1 . t‘i
f . New York City Police Department
CSummons


SUMMONS
Date: 3/4/2047 lime: 04:10 Category Type: URINATING
Summons Id: 4430617578 Precinct: 072 Boro: BROOKLYN •
Patrol Born: PATROL BORO BKLYN Jurisdiction: N.Y. POUCE DEPT Addr Intersection.: NO •
SOUTH
Command Code: 072 Crime: URINATING IN PUBLIC
Law: Administrative Code Other Desc.: * Section #: 16-1186
Return Warrant: Sub Division: Type Code: C
Vehicle Type: .
Housing Name: Housing Boro: Off Dev. Flag:
ADDRESS • - •
• Street 0: 225 Street Name: 47 STREET Apt./Suite #: •
Cross Street bitted Street Full Address: 226 47 STREET
• -
City: BROOKLYN ' State: NY Zip Code:
Comer: Occurrence: Residence:
Time At Loo: Precinct 072
TRANSIT ' •
Una Name: • Precinct • Station Name:
Boro: . District Post
PERSON .
. .Rola: Respondent Last Name: DUPREE First Name: PLENTIS
' DOB: Cale. Age: 23 • Reported Age: 0

Sex: MALE Race: BLACK
HA Resident: • . earn]MI.: NO Business Name: .
LOCATION DRESS STATE/CNTRY ziE APT/R00111
HOME-PERMANENT
OFFICER
Of Reported Name: IONASHKO TaxIt: • Command 0: 072 Rep. 'Agency:

Pagel of 2
NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Worksheet : Aided
Status
Report 0=017-072.000580
Imam Date : 03102017 04:30 Sattrday

INCIDENT INFORMATION
OCCURRENCE DATE
arrow 03P25/2017 04;30 Saturday d

AIDED PERSON .
rTypc''''avina,
—"---- s . . 5 • * '. **i
4 444
:Neste: RAGINA MORNING • e
• Is Aided Victim of a Crime?: No.
Homeless: No
;Address Ty : NY0
”...........-,...... .... - •-•,. , ..... .... ... .. , . • ,... ''
i&caw 140r.I 227 .1IfStrait NONNI 47 SINEE7 _ Alit Type: V OW: Ii

Boren* Oreftil ?State: New York. Y


.. ....,... we IS. ......_
Contest Type Contostakabgrype , Contact Sub-Type Other Value
. - . e
intone 7
'Email ij :.
:803C Female Nam Black 4444..,

1,, .4:14.4.....4.s..... .. • ,
.,...h.. y ••• . ,r .1.....,.........1.V., 1,11414, ..:.•a r. • •I . • ..... , .... r . ,• .i:.. . ...
.
iDete of Birth: c,Age:21 1
1
iiNeldittjured : Yes ,, Emotionally Disturbed : No itost Person : No • . 1,0eroessed : No.
' Rtineviry Child : No t Unconsiolous: No lAbusediAbendenediNegfeeted •:, Name* Related: No 1
3.. • chnrueto. : No ,,a
'rests Reason : MI:sr:No 1t0Other'-Iticptidn •' . • . .. (
;Treatment Treated:sad Released i .
=Removed ks?: Hormild glom: al Code: 7128-Lutheran • firansported to Hospital Sy: 0999- -
; 'Medical Center ;Poke Ambulance
Treated Ely: 9U6114813 EMS Admission rk i I
iMIMI{ 17032503821
SHIEID# s
538

LOCATION OP OCCURRENCE
r,Lawton Category: Other
;Jurisdiction; NYPO • Least:on Typo Street Iteration Within: 42747
e fSTREET )
:Location Identflen bedded i Location Nem: , I
ADDRESS
••est..mvnrr.:f-+s14~....v.Kn.t xsp-amot-w7wwrgik,-.+wo.....mr ..e...-.4., .•—•.'.-sf.....—.A.0
--
, .......—^......=--..=======,r•.....
:Address Type: Street Address Logsdon Identlika Inside of
MOB% No.: 227 µ igreet Name: 478TREE7 - iUnIt7ype: itUntt St
,.....„........,......., .. ... , • ., - .c..• W.. ...arttair...• C..,.....v.“....Y:t...... .1..... • ..r....•/: ..1, " I" ,
,,,,,, , ..3. • • .: .V.• .,... :1 ,... .•.:—. w•- • ••• • — •-• • - 4 4 44- 4 444

Borough: Brociktyn . IStetehlravYclic • 1


t 1 ; -".1
: 0011Ntr: interanang Street c. x
i Cross Strewth 2 AvEiNtiE lessee etme2 3 AVENUE ? 1
Se 13
;Pot 072 4 4 44 : ctor: .., i
.... - '.. :. .— . „. .4.- . .... . ..
.
f Latitude: 40.6133 ... 'Longitude -74.014436 .1
• • •

GENERAL AIDED INFORMATION


Children or Dependent Adults Unbend tor7:148

DEPT. OR AGENCY INVOLVED


t City Involved?: No •

NOTIFICATIONS
DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATIONS .4•2!..10.0:0M00.0.......96,4% ”..¢ .21.=.0A=3.....,:maaens -...:=10VP.S4.2".......ral.S. ........1:67,4171CR.1=ta
NOTIFICATIONS
NOTIFICATIONS AND DUPLICATE COPIES FOR
Loa Nuraber
AIDED VICTIM NOTIFICATIONS
REQUIREDIF AIDED leADPAITTED ORMap

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .
-
IF EDP •
...,------.........v.-,......7------------
!Prior HIstoty: Unlorcasi 1 •
!Afton.Physical harm to self: No ;Mem.Physical,harm to othora: Picsold sellin dangerous Physicality iirecianedotiseia; iis i
: LNG .:p.situation : No • i
VetbaIly thradaned others: No itpoi* of harming Rolf orethers: ',Unable to cantorad: NO i
No i
;Under possible narootio 4r acs.MateIfknown 1 ' i Under ponallsks alcohol InftuOnoe: AIf se,.shile
..• Ifknown : i
•Inesenco: No .. • INcs i • I
Lather (Explain In Datidia): No xIt Other, Rupiahs : (. 1
.. ...)
CPR ADMINISTERED •
Meath to MoodsNo • /AidedRe;usaitated: • .
F
'••••••••: •••• "-• • '
O.C. SPRAY •
- , .
I Was 0.0.4w Used?: Ho ,

DETAILS
AT T/P/ONG1*-4 WAS INV:WAND UNCONSCIOUS AFTER LEAVINGCLUB LOVELUST AT 22047 STREET BROOKLYN, NY. SUS 0480 EMS
SHIELD AIDEDRESPONSIVE ANDVOMITING. AIDED ReCOVED"R3 LMG

ADDITIONAL REPORTS PREPARED


PamType Report No. Vkaalion Section c Pot

DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
REPORTING OFFICER •
Agency: NewYorkOty Ponce •iCommas* 072 • i Continand DesoriptIon: 072 j71t1370171O'' .1.03030
.4
:Department ;s PRECINCT i
:..,....,...,...,....•s • • • -.. .. ••.: .......• • ..A.,,...,-......, ,.......,- ••••••r••-••••• -••••• ,•••,--^ ...•-•••-•-••-•-•-••• ---•-• •:•••••---i,.••••• • •-•...-...- - ......,-.••• -..... 'A.:v.,- 4
!Tax Number:10M Manic POL OFF F LadHone MANNEY %Mort Name; eltrrurs
:Shield* i

ENTERED EY • •
Agency: NewYctk011yPolke Aommend: 072 iCemmanit DemiAmu 072
- - it/C/O
"— No4-6090
i
,De at ...,,,., ,.., ....„.. „. !PRECINCT . , ,
2 es
1.1111sid r* 00000 j .
• -•• - • .•-• -- - -- • •••••• •
ENDORSEMENT HISTORY

filubmItted By: t Approved/R*4W Ely: ; Note: • Easdup: EndorsementDate: u,..<


.e • ..••••

JANICE ERICE HE:MAMIE A Approved 03126r101718788 Saturday r:


PAA072 t SOT 072
York CityPoke PRECI NewYo*CIty •
DePartnient 03030 MoeDepatnent03030 t •
. .
: • •• r •

•• • .•
• :
•• • •• •
j•
r • •
f . .44 ' • . .•
- ••• . •
•• •••••::•••••i-;?-;!•••• • -•
• •••;•-•-ft:'
••4r•••• • • •.• , •- •
• . • •-

.."
•••••••:' • '•*; : -. ••

• ' • . ., • •
13: Ja. ..Yes No ❑ Urik. .A.?delis:of,ELT .(chfuilc
. .If c.,P,R. pispiii9toNd opybe .. .
• :••••::::.+7•,••.
li 10: 1.1T6.49ifia moot! to motttri
.Z.9e••••
11i4.4—1.4134% • •••.,000t.10 ArtIO0300i.t0.•4Y! •
'r=

•-laxittiztK.•
• sA4--..k.. :
:••...; •

,i.,`•-'i"4
--• ... rci . ""4'.wa4•:-••
i, ,--..,.,4.,.*.,.!••••,iiiaLr--,,.,_,A..-;'OK ,,,,*;,,--•=-4,•-
-,

.••• •• .1.• • l'... . • • .


•:&4;:•; 17 4.4itrligi.t"M
.: ......"5 .1'4A..7:44741:-.11/44.";'.:
- .k Z.T. ii
,...g;ii.6 ..A.V.f.ti2.4Itif•W:iiP1,1. , • ...c.•..g.la'.::;••••.e.:•••• . :%:t, ••:i... Si el:
. .

" ' •" • • . • • • •. • •••


- . :.

. •
. . • . .. .
--Fif';'• • • ' 1— -
'0.1141 -:orpritv • Commend
AK) , ••
• .
1440144 " • 'Commend
A-, •• • :4 Bp..: • ••
•• .1•••-•.a.. •• • • ' •• •
•-•... - •
•-• • • •
.

'.. • •

.• . •
-gbuted:5/25/2017 21:42 Executed by:NYPDF41
.. . r %WYE
...... .
I . • _....• _• . .._
i„
New York City Police Department , ., ..
Aided Report
.: . ,. .
AIDED INFORMATION
Aided Report*.00997 Record Create Date: 5/21/2017
Report Date: 521/2017 Report Precinct: 072
Report Thne: 04:30 MOS Flag: NO
Occurrence Address: 225 47 STREET Occurrence Borough PATROL BORO BKLYN SOUTH
Intersecting Street: Occurrence Precinct 072
Cross Street 2 AVENUE ' Jurisdiction: N.Y. POLICE DEPT
Location Of Occurrence: FRONT OF Subway Line: N •
VICTIM ' . .
Name: ERIC KEYS . Pedigree: M/8/29
Address: • Birth Date:
Homeless: NO • Uncalled For: NO
Phone Number: Emotionally Disturbed: U
. Emotionally Disturbed Deem '
NOTIFIED .

Date: . Time:
Name: Relation to Victim:
Address: Phone Number. -

AIDED DETAILS
AidedCategory: UNCONSCIOUS ACR #: 91151016
. Aided Refused: FcR#: S1151016
City Involved: BROOKLYN Agency: 072
Removed To: Mouth to Mouth: NO -
Fact* Type: 1 Resuscitated: NO
Treated By: MOLDONADO #7657 Spray Used: NO
Report Code: - Misc Reports:
Narrative: AT TPO AIDED WAS A PATRON OF CLUB LUST LOCATED AT 225 47 STREET BROOKLYN NY 11220. AIDED EXITED THE CLUB AND
LOST CONCIOUSNESS DUE TO AN ALCOHOL OVERDOSE. AIDED WAS TREATED ON SCENE AND REMOVED TO LUTHERAN MEDICAL
CENTER. .

REPORTING OFFICER
,Name: VITAUY IONASHKO Command: 072

Page 1 of 2
"Pk,* ..71folrk. letitex-Piaci!!:.:,010atittrmietutt • •
• ••-t •'; •
ekmati.iifckPm $35. tie 1:11
" •" • •'•. e •
9,,m191-4-1,
••••••.• • • r•
'
:rt--: •
. • •, • • -.• •-•
••• - '; •••••

Report Cmd: Record Status: Complalia*: No other :


072 NY. POLICE DEPT Final, Arrests made 207-072- , Legacy Blue Revisions: „ • •
02998 • • yikrilons View All •
Versions 0i:
Occurrence INSIDE OF 225 NYC Parks Dept. Property Precinct: 072
Location: 47 STREET Did this offense occur on NYC NO Sector':
Name Of Premise: CLUB LOVE LUST Parks Dept Property? Beat: 0
' *Pindisns Type: DAFdriieuir DOB. Command: Post •
Location Within HALLWAY . NYC Parks Dept. Property Name:
Premise: •. .
Visible By Patrol?: NO •

Occurrence FrOin: 2017-06-04 03:30 SUNDAY :Aided * 00000i084-• ,


Occurrence thru: 201706-04 b4:08 Accident* • • ' ' r ‘• •
Reported: 2017-06.04 08:10 0.4.03. • • ••
. • ..

.

Complaint Received: RADIO •••
. .
•••• - Classification: ASSAULT • .-•• • CaseStatus: CLOSED •
• .• • •• — • •
Attempted1Completed: COMPLETED Unit Referred To: •
Mat Sirlousi Ofiestle Is: FELONY.' -• • • elegance Code: UN1FOttfIt ANFigsv
PD Code: •100 ASSAULT 2,1 UNCLASSIFIED Lcigicase 6: 0
• PI;Secifon: 12005 • • ' •• Clearance •
Keycode: 106 ASSAULT-FELONIOUS Clearance AO Mild:
. •
• •• ; • • • ' 'Fie*: 6
Prints Requested? NO

fe This Related Yo littikAhd Frisk , SCIF.Nutey: • 1.111Ra7hi‘fictlitiVIsainonel MfaiThe Victim's iierionai • • •


Report Od00-00 '400000 latordiation Taken Or Information Used To.Commit •.. •
NO . . . ssed?
,Foest Crime? ' • • c*i
1

1:10"..•! . NO .

Gang Related? 000D SOD LOS /1: ame Of Gang: bhild Abuse Suspected?
NO NO
DIR Required? • . Child In Common? •. Intimate Relationship?
NO : • NO
NO

If Buraldiv: Alarm: • If AliOni • Taxi Robbery:


Forced Entry? Bypassed? Structure: • Partition Present
Structqre: . •
Comp Responded?: Ocoupted?: Amber Stress Light Activated: •1
Entry Moihod: Company Name/Phone: Damage by., Method of Conveyance:
Entry Location: Location of Pickup:
Crime Prevention
Survey Requested?:
ConiplaintfReporter
Present?:

Supervisor On Scene - Rank I Name/ Canvasbonducted: Translator(if used):


Command : NO
SGT VAUTRINOT 72 •
NARRATIVE: .• •
ATI/P/0 crit STATES PEP-151D ENGAGE IN A yESBAI. DISPUTE **MN CNINSIDE OF CLUB LOVE LUST OVER MONEY. ON FURTHER.
STATES PERP DID STRIKE CNIN THE HEADUSING SHOES WITH HEELS. CN SUFFERED MINOR ABRASIONSAND,LACERAtitiNTQ •
THE HEAD AND CHEST. CN TREATED ON SCENE AND REFUSED TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITALSGt. VAUTRINDY ON
SCENE. • " • • • '
Version 1. SYSTEM GENERATED
(No NYC TRANSIT Data for Complaint # 2017-072-02998 •
Total Victims: Total Want:sees: Total Reporters: Total Wanted: •
I • •• - 0
• • 1
I
. . * . . . . . . .
: . ' •
CAMIIIPidi:
V16.11111: It 1 of 1 . . : - DAVID,INELANIE ' . - 2017-O7 -02998

NicidAKARilaiden: Gang/Crete Affiliation: NO • •
. UMOS: NO . . Name:
• • SeXIType: FEMALE : • Identifiers:
-
Race: HISPANIC BLACK • •.J

Ape: 22 •
Date Of Birth: . - , .-
Disabled? NO • wil View Photo: YES - • •
Is this person not Proficient in English?: NO WM Pnatecute: YES .
If Yes, Indicate Language: Notified Of Crime NO
N.Y.C:HA Resident? NO . • . . VimcOIPP!1,015: . . •
• - • VSV UMUZMI lOr crownanny i lint r Imo "
Escalating violence I abuse by suspect? NO •
Were prior DIR's prepared for NO aN? . . . ••
. . . •
OCAtION ADORES • CITY STATFJCOURTRY,ZIP APT/ROOM ' . •-
HOME-PERMANENT . • - - • •

Phone 0: HOME:111111.11.0ELLi ittISINESSiNot PiiwidedlUnavallable BEEPER: Not Provided/Unavailable E-MAIL: Not
provided(Unavallabk. .
Victim was: ' Ehot' ` Stabbed Li Slashed .
• NO • • NO : • • NO A ' •
. : . • '
Action* Of Victim Prior To incident: •
HAVING VERBAL DISPUTE WITH PERP : • • • -
Vicdm Qf Similar incident If Yes, When'And Where' • '
• • •
• NO • • \ .

• . .,. . . . . •
• •: • ' - 1411(Kife: obinidal*: • iiiiitita: " :
WANTED: #1 of 1 • . JERPMIAH, 2017-072-02998 YES
kANASHA J .
,. . , • . •
NM/AKA/Maiden: Height: 6FT4IN Order Of Pideeilon: NO
. Sex: FEMALE VVOililt: iog Issuing Coitrt ••
Race: BLACK Eye Color: BROWN Docket 5:
Age: 22 Hair Color: BLONDE ' Expiration Date: .
. . Date Of Birth: Hair Length: LONG Order of Protection Violated? NO
U.S. Citizen: YES Hair style: STRAIGHT Dees Suspect abuse Drugb / NO
Place Of Birth: Skin Tonei DARK Alcohol?
is this person not Proficient in Englieh?: NO Complexion: CLEAR Suspect threatened /attempted NO
suicide? --
if Yes, indicate Language: • • . is the suspect Parole I Probation? NO
-
Accent: NO SA*: 0
C0-
Relation to Victim: WORKER
Livinglogether: NO
• Can be Identified: YES
. .
'• Gang/Crew AffMatieh: NO
Name: •
Identifies: • -
• - ,
LOCH ADDRESS mot STATEJCOUNi•RY ME APTIROOM HOW LONG? RES. PCT
HOME-PERMANENT
Phone*: HOME: - - CELL: -- BUSINESS: - - BEEPER: -- E-MAIL:

N.Y.C.HA. Resident: NO N.Y.C. Housing Employee: NO On Duty:
Development: N.Y.C. Transit Employee: NO

Physical Force:NONE . .
Weapons: . - .

Gun:
Weapon Used/Possessed: USED/DISPLAYED Make: Recovered: NO
Non-Fires= Weapon: BLUNT INSTRUMENT Caliber. Serial Number Defaced:
Other Weapon Description: SHOE WITH HEEL Color: Serial Number. •
Type:
OthedGun Specify:
Discharged: NO

Used Transit System:


.
Station Entered: •
Time Entered:
Metro Card Type:
Metro Card Used/Poses:
Card #:
- • •
CRIME DATA DETAILS
MODUS 01*ERANDI STRUCK Clv IN HEAD WITH OBJECT
ACTIONSTOWARD VICTIM STRUCK WITH OBJECT
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR -SWEATER OR VEST -BLACK
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR-SNEAKERS -GRAY
CLOTHING HEADGEAR -UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CLOTHING ACCESSORIES -UNK -UNKNOWN COLOR
CHARACTERISTICS UNKNOWN
BODY MARKS -UNKNOWN
IMPERSONATION UNKNQWN

ARRESTS: I complaint # 2017-072-02998

Arrest ID Status Defendant Name Sex Race AGE Arrest Date


K17637614 ACTIVE JEREMIAH, KANASHA FEMALE BLACK
NO IMEi Data for Complaint # 2017-072-02998 -
ReportIng/InvestlgatIng M.O.S. Name: • Tax #: Command: Rep.Agency:
POM IONASHKO VITALIY 072 PCT NYPD

Supervisor Approving Name: Tax fil Command: RePAfielleY: •


072 PCT NYPD
SOT SHEA CHRISTOPHE
Complaint Report Entered By: Tax 2: Command: Rep.Agency:
POM IONASHKO 072 POT NYPD

Siam* Supervisor Name: Tax #: Command: Rep.Agency: •


SOT ZAHEER 072-PCT NYPD

END OF COMPLAINT REPORT


5 2047-072-02598

NostotR.9.P.Prt•1
Niew Nita* C.ifty. 1.)14f.p#1,14441104
!A• • S;y stA - A nrvofs t s "
pECCAP STATUS: NyspfrpirgFp "West ID; 107.6376.14 - R
Arrest Location: INSIDE OF 225 47 STREET Pot: 072
Arrest Date: 06-04-2017 Processing Type: ON LINE Curreht LOcatiori of Perpetrator:
Time: 04:06:00 DCJS Fax Number K0028090 Borough: Brooklyn •

• • Sector: B Special Event Code: NO - IYIARECOTEll
Ship Search Conducted: NO DAT Number 0 Location:•072 PREC
Viper Initiated Arrest NO
Stop And Frisk NO Return Date: 0000-00-00
J UN .1 2 267.:
Serial #: 0000.000-00000
-T 7
0.p f'
COMPLAINTS: -
COMPLAINT NUMBER REPORT DATE RECORD STATUS OCCUR DATEprzini rasa
mum -gaga • 2017-08-04 Valid, Initial Arrests made 20I7-08-04 03:30

CH4ROES;•.• . . • ..• . •••• . Arfasol!•1071337.61411-• • •


CHARGE ATTEMPT? LAW &tie: bads iypt COUNTS DESCRIPTION •• • • • *: • BURNING %. .• .
TOP No PL 120.05 02 F D 1 ASLT 2: SERIOUS. IN:I W/ WEAPON • •

#02 NO 'PL 240.28 01 V . 0 1 HARASSMENT-2ND:pHY CONTACT
# Injured: # Fatalities:
. 1.
DWI Arrest *On 00 Test Given:. B.A.C: Reeion Net F.orreIU • **

DETAILS:' •• • K1 7.6Pti.k •INT0.11.0k


AT T/P/0 CN STATES PERP DID ENGAGE IN A VERBAL DISPUTE WITH CN INSIDE OF CLUB LOVE LUST OVER 816Nr/.. CN PliRTHERSATE.S •
PER op STRIKE cN iN THE HEAD usitiesaokairam HEEL.8:9N litiFFERED.MINOR ABRA*ONS AND LACERATION TO THE HEAD AND "
(!HEST:CN TIIEATED ON SCENE AND REFUSED TO BE TKANSPORTED TO THE HOSPITAL-SGT. VAUTRINOT ottgtErsiE.. • • - 0*.

liEFENDA/1/7'; JEREMIAH UNASHA *J" • • .K:176.61'61'


. . .
:Nick/AKA/Maiden: . . Height• lir eitt gnier•Of protection: NO •:.
Sim. FEMALE .: • Weight .100 . • issuing Corirb.
Race: BLACK . Eye Color: BROWN !Docket #:.
. •. • • .24 . Ilatr Color: BLONDE . • ••Exiltation Date: - • - • -; •
Date Of BIM: Hair Length: LONG Relation to Victim: CO-WORKER
U.S. Citlzieh: YES • HalisSiik STRAIGHT CIO% together: N . *"... . • .
. Kam Of Birth: . • . Skin Tone; DARK CVO be
-Is this person not.ProfIcient in No Complexion: CLEAR
Englipht •
If Yes, Indicate Language:
• SOC.SOCtety
Accent NO
Occupation: OTHER Gang/Crew Affiliation: NO
l Drivers
Identification ID: tileYnt v License
or Name:
Identifiers:
Id5.)** 41#: •
Physloal Condition: APPARENTLY NORMAL• LYPermR
'NW
Drug Used: NONE . Lic/Permit No:

LOCATION • ADDRESS • STATEICNTRY TAP APT/ROOM POT •


HOME-PERMANENT 1111
Phone # and &Mali Addressc •
N.Y.C.H.A. Resident NO N.Y.C. Housing Employee: NO On Duty:
Development N.Y.C. Transit Employee: NO

Physical Force:NONE
Gun:
Weapon Use&Possessed: USEINDJAPLAYED Make: Recovered: NO
Non-Firearm Weapon: BLUNT INSTRUMENT Color: Serial Number Defaced:
Other Weapon Description: SHOE WITH HEEL Caliber: Serial Number:
1 . Type:
Discharged: NO •
_ I
• •
' Used Transit System: NO -

Station Entered: •
Time Entered: .• • • •
Man', Card Type: .
Metro Card Used/Poses: ' • -
Card #: •

CRIME DATA pETAILS


MODUS OPERANDI STRUCK CN IN HEAD WITH OBJECT -
ACTIONS TOWARD VICTIM STRUCK WITH OBJECT •
CLOTHING OUTERWEAR - SWEATER OR VEST,- BLACK • . •
CLOTHING FOOTWEAR -SNEAKERS -GRAY
• '
CLOTHING HEADGEAR -, UNK - UNKNOWN.CQLOR • .
• '
1110314114a .„ .., ..... . . ......AMMIRE11,-.111C rAIINOWN.C.91.PR.. _ .. . .
CHARACTERISTICS UNKNOWN
.: . . .
IPAPERS,ONATION • ..:.:UNKNOWN .. . . • ' '
JUVENILE DATA: • .... . • • • • Affetiek K17637614 • . . : . _ *.
Juvenile Offender: Relative Notified: Personal Recoil: -
Nuniber Of Priors: 0 Name . • • .
School Attending: . .. Phone• Caller: . • . .. . • • • •
.• .
Mothers Maiden Name: . Time Notified*. • .

ASSOCIATED ARRESTS: : • Arrestif K17637614


.
oustesric COMPLAINT* • . . •

ly.o Vehicles for Arrest # • . • .


.:
DEPENDANTS CALLS: . . ... Air** 1{17637614

GALL s NUMBER DIALED NAME - PROVIDED BY DEFENDANT NAME AS LISTEDIN CELL PHONE RELATIONSHIP . CALL COMPLETED
1
12
1 — -
INVOICES: j Arnett.KI71337614
INVOICE# COMMAND PROPERTY TYPE VALU
NV

ARRESTING OFFICER: P01111VITALIT IONASHKO #: K17637614 •


. .
Tax Number: On Duly: YES ' . •
Force Used: No
Other ID (non-NYPD): In Uniform: YES
. TTPe
Shield: • Squad: A3
Reason:
Department NYPO Chart 02
Officer Injured: NO
Command: 072 Primary AssIgnnlent
_.%., ,
Arresting Officer Name: Text Command: (MIN:
POM IONASHKO, VITALIT 072 NYPD •

Somber Approving: l Command: Agency:


SOT SHEA CHRISTOP 072 • . NYPD

Report Entered by: aomman& Agency:


POM IONASHKO.! VITA 072 NYPD •
.._. •4
END OF ARREST REPORT • ' •
K17637614
EXHIBIT 6
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
tiny
PD 310-150(7-98)
Date: Unit Submitting Report:
03/14/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION


Address:(Indfcate Wks:ration Is known by an additional address) City County State Z Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name pf Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough:. Precinct: CommunkyBoani No.:
Kings • 072 7
SIA: Unlicensed 2El-fuer:sad License Number (Beginswith the Year of Expiration.and the Number is located at the top left corner of LICense)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check One):
• 0 Bar D Social Club . 0 Catering Hell 0 Grocery Cl Pool Hai Cl Restaurant LI Booth / Stand
BiOther if Other, Briefly Describe: Night Club

131 l titiestairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left,
1)gi?kil LIEln one is love the other is called lust
Name of Owner of Building: Telephone No.
Unknown Address:Unknown
'ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (LastrirstM.I.) Command Telephone No.: be Shield Number.
r:
PO Chema 072
macaw
Date of Orrourrence: Time of Occurrence:
01/29/2017 0422
Name of Subject of PoliceAction: Telephone No.:
Nadine Brown '
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.:
4434584713 Discon Fighting
pad( One): . . (Check One):.
E Penal Law. CI Alcohol Beverage Control I] Other: Cl Felony CI PAsdemeanor PI Violarton
Details of Pollee Action:
AT TPO several female exited the club located at 225 47 Street Club Lust, The female came running down
the stairs of the location then they precoded to run to the corner, One group of females started to fight with
several other females that were also at the club, the female started to hit and pull each others hair. Lt Meyer
and several officer did disperses the crowd but one female continued to fight with another. She was brought to
the 72 Precinct and issued a C- summons. One female who refused to give her name stated that a fight
started inside of the club and security pushed the crowd onto the street and that is why they all came running
out of the location. None one wanted to pursue and charges.

FlreamteArreeptizures? NerooticsArrest/Selzures? Nrdeance Abatement Papers Forwarded With ibis


0 Yes E Na CI Yes RI
No 0 Yes Fe No
OTHER RESPONSE
FONT Respondjad During ThleAction? if"Yes." FDNYActiVity- Number issued: Premises Vacated by FDNY?
• 0 Yes la No _Notice(s) ofirmtation Ulaiations 0 Yes rig No
Other Enforcemitnt Unit Responded? Results:
CI Yes ®No

(;frifbka--
Commanding Officer Z
1.< ‘"".
I 4..;
FORWARD Ms wow To VICE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.1 POLICE PLAZA. ROOM1200. IF INCIDENT RE/OLVE8AN UNDERAGE*Amur oRAUXURRY
POLWBoPPMER,ANAPRDAvrrigge/RE FoRiNARDEDitiini THIS REPORT.
POLICEACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
•PD310460(7-98)
Date: Unit Submitting Report: ' .
03/14/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PRENUSEINFORMATION •
Address:and:ate iflocationIs knownby an additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn . Kings 11220
• Name ofPremise: ne No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Prednct: Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SLA: 0 Unlicensed • RILicensed LicenseNumber: (Begins wfth the Year ofExpiration and the Number is located at the top left cornerofLicense)
Ser# 1273975 •
Description Check One):
0 Bar Ci Social Club Cl Catering Hall 0 Groom 0 Pool Hall Restaurant • 0 Booth / Stand
efOlher natter, WayDescribe: Night Club
Layout
PZier f up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
TelephoneNo.
Name ofOwnerofBuilding: Address:
Unknown • Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICERINFORMATION
Rank: (Prini) Name OasUirst)11.1.) Command Telephone No.: lint Number: Shield Number:
Detective Taylor 428
INCIDENT
Date of Cootirren00: • Time ofOccurrence:
. 0015 •
03/03/2017
Name of Subject of Police Action: L . • 1,- ,,,,, Telephone/1o.:
Jairam, lmrarn
Summons No.: Arrest No.: • Complaint No.: I, ~ !es:
4430623184 Unlic Cabaret - •
( o& One): • (Check One):
Penal Law Cl AlcoholBeverage Control Cl Other: ' Cl Felony N Misdemeanor taltiolalion
DellsofPollee Action:
AT TPO while conducting business inspection at the location the location was observed to have an expired
Cabaret License.

RECEIVED
MAR 3.0 2017

FlreamisArrest/Sekures?
0 Yee id No
OTHERRESPONSE
NarcolicsArrest/Seizures?
0 Yes gi No NulliVb. arr a
PapersFA141744Qiiikik
0 cE couNsa,NYC
AUTHORITY

FDNYRespontid Owing ThleAction? If"Yes," FDNYActivity - Number Issued: PremisesVacated by FDNY?


CI Yes No ____Notice(s)ofViolation Violations 0 Yes of No
• Other EnforcemintUnit Responded? Results:
Yes E No
Li-votr f

Commanding Officer

FORWARD Th18 REPORT TO VICE ENFORCEPAENT DIVONON,1POLICEPLAZA,ROOPA1200.1PINCIDENTINVOLVES ANUNDERAGE SALETOACADETORAUXUARY


POLICEOPHOER,ANAPPIDAVITinalBE FORWARDEDVATH THIs REPORT
I

POLICE ACTION
LICENSEDAJNUCENSED PREMISES
It no"
PD 310-150(7-98)
Date: Unit Bubo:MingReport:
03/15/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
-PREMISE INFORMATION
Addreet(indicate Blot:Man is known byan additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name ofPremise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SIA: Cl Unlicensed 18 Licensed License Number: (Beghiswth the Year ofExpirationand the Number'slocatedat thelopleft corner ofLicenbe)
Ser# 1273975
bescription(Check One):
•C] Bar 0 Social Club [3 Catering Hall • 0 Grocery CI Pool Hall 0 Restaurant 13 Booth / Stand
lifOther IfOther, Briefly Describe: Night Club
PhysicalLayout:
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the tight one on the left, one is love the 'other is called lust
Name ofChatter ofBulking: Address: Telephone No.
Unknown ' Unknown 1
ARRESTINGOFFICERINFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (Last,Firstgl) Command Telephone No.: Tax Number: Shield Number:
PO Ciappa 072
INCIDENT
Date of Occurrence: Time of Ocourrenoe:
03/11/2017 0230
Name of Subject of Police Action: dress: lephons
Carry lia, Frank
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: es:
4434590855 Unlic Cabaret
(Check One): (Cheirk One):
0 NNW Law 0 Alcohol Beverage Control El Other! Admin Code CI Felony 13 Misdemeanor v.1Violation
Details ofPolice Action: •
AT TPO while conducting business inspection at the location the location was obserVed to have an expired
Cabaret License. The 'officer did observe at least 5 women dancing on the stage In the center of the Bar
around poles, the Officers flute' observed several patrons dancing around the bar. The Cabaret License
expired on 09/30/2016. The person issued the summons stated he was the manager at the time of the
violation. •

FirearmsArrest/Seizures? NercotiosArresySelis? Nuisance Abatement Papers Forwarder' VIAth Thisin


• 0 Yes vi Nq Yes M N ❑ Yes .10 No
OTHERRESPONSE
Premises Vacated by PONY?
MAR 3.0 2017
FONT keepOnclitd During This Action? II "Yea," FDNYActivity - Number issued:
13 Yee 15 No potke(s) of Violation Violations 13 Yes 111 No •
Other Enforcemmt UnitResponded? Results: STATE LIQUOR AUMORI1
0 Yee El No

Commanding Officer
FORWARD THIS REPORT TO VICE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, I POLICE PLAZA, ROOM1200. IF INCIDENT INVOLVESAN UNDERAGE SALETOACADETCRAUXILIARY
POLICEOFPIGER, ANAPPIDAVITIMBE FORWARDED WITH THUS REPORT. .
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
PO310450 (7418)
Date: Unit Submitting Report
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
AddresegIndicate if location leknown by an additional address) City • County State r ip Code
225.47th Street Brooklyn kings NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: Community Board No.
Kings 072 7
SLAG Cl Unlicensed RI Licensed License Number: (Beginswith the Year of Expiration and the Number Is located at the topleft corner of License)
Ser# 1273975
besoriptIon (Check One):
o Bar CI Social Club • 0 Catering Hal . D Grocery D Pool Hall EI Restaurant 13 Booth / Stand
• Other EOlher, Briefly Desodbe: Night Club
Physical Layout:
VaWalk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name of OwnerofBuilding: . Address: iblephone No.
Uhknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (Last,FketA11.1.) Command lblephune No.: lbx Number. • Slield Number:
PO Tails 072
INCIDENT '
Date of Occurrence: Time of Ooeurreneet
02/25/2017 0400
Name of Subject of Police Action:
Tiffan Bolden
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.:
2M:07g-1256 Assault 3
(ChedcOne): (Check One);
la Penal IA* CI Alcohol Beverage Control l7 Other: ❑ Felony P. Aftedetneanor CI Violation
Details of PolleeAotton:
AT TPO Mrs. Bolden stated that while she was inside of the club Lust located at 225 47 Street a fight broke
out She stated that she attempted to break up the fight when gi male did grab her by her shirt and throw her
across the room. Mrs. Bolden stated that the male who threw her was an employee of the location and his
name is Rich. Aided report 425 prepared. •

RECEIVED
MAR 3.0 2017
FirearmeArrestIfieixtres? NamotlosArraspeiztuas? Nuisance Abateptent Papers Forwarded With This Incident?
CI Yee SI No 0 Yee RI No 0 Yes No
OTHER RESPONSE
FONT Respondjod During ibleAution? If 'Yea," FDNYActivay - Number Issued: Premises%sated by
Yes al No Notice(s) of Violation 'Violations Yes 2f No
0
Other Enforoestnt Unit Responded?
Yes M No

Commanding Officer
• FORWARD 'MISREPORT TO VICSIRVOROEMENT DIVISION, I POLICE PLAZA,so0M1200.1F WolDENTINVOLVESAN UNDERAGESALETOACADSTORAIDWARY
FOLIOSOPFICER,ANAFFIDAVITIMBS FORWARDIEDWITH THIS REPoRT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNUCENSED PREMISES
mei
PD 3104S0 (7.58)
Date: Unit Submitting Report:
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PRIEMIf INFORMATION
Adciress:(indicale if location is known by an additional address) City County State Zip Code floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name of Premise: "'Woollens No.:
Love and Lust
Bora*: Neck)* Communly Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SLA: CI Unlicensed ra Licensed License Minter: (Beginswith the Year of Explralion end the Number is located at the top left oornerof License)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check Ono:
Bar Cl Social Club 0 Catering Hall O Grocery CI Pool Hall In Restaurant Booth / Stand
0
EfOther If Other, Bristly Describe: Night Club
Physical Layout
VValk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name of Owner of Building: Address: Talephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (Last.Fkst,Na) Command Telephone No.: lint Number. Shia Number:
PO Iversen 072
INCIDENT
Date of Coeurrenee: Time of Coeurrenco:
01/15/2017 , • 0440
Name of Subject of Police Action: Telephone No.:
Jamall Morris .
Summons No.: Arrest No.: • Complaint No.: es:

(Check One): (Check One); •


Cl Penal Law • Alcohol Beverage Control WI Other: Aided ' • i:3 Felony • Misdemeanor Ill Violation
Details of Pollee Action:
AT TPO Mr Morris was drinking at the 225 47 Street Club Lust, He was so highly intoxicated that he had to be
removed to a Hospital Via EMS. Aided report was prepared. 2017-072-107

0 1-4
FirearmsArreat/fisizures? NarooticsArrest/S°hums? Nuisance Abatepent Papers Forwarded llith
DYes El No DYes , No DYes No la
OTHER RESPONSE
Premises Vacated by FDNY?
FDNY Respond,ed During ThisAction?
Cl Yes • No
Other Enforcemynt Unit Responded?
If "Yes," FDNYActivity - Number Issued:
_NotIce(s)ofMotation • Violations
Results:
1 DYes fif No • -
Yes SI No

iq
s r-

Qat\ a
Commanding Officer

FORWARD THIll REPORT TO VICE ENFORCEMENTDIVIINONA POLICE PLAZA, ROOM1200. IF INCIDENT INvoLVESAN UNDERAGE SALETOA CADET ORAWOUARY
POUCE OPPICER.ANAPFIDAINTISMI BE FORWANDEDWITHTHEI REPORt •
••c
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
PD 310-150 (7-98)
Date: Unit submitting Report:
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
Address:(I40de if location is known by an addlionaraddress) City CAN* Slate *cocl Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn IGngs NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SLA: 0 Unlicensed M Licensed 1.1corisaNutnber. (Beginswilh the Year of Expiration and the Number is located at the top left corner of License)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check One):
0 Bar 0 Social Club 0 Catering Hall 0 Grocery 0 Pool Hall 0 Restaurant 0 Booth / Stand
&her If Other, Briefly Dearaibe: Night Club
Physical Layout
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left; one is love the 'other is called lust
Name of Ownerof Building: Address: Telephone No.
Unknown Unknown .
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION . •
Rank (Pciiit) "'ante (Last,FirstAtl.) Command Telephone No.: Tax Number. Shield Number.
PO Ruiz 072
INCIDENT
Date of Ortaturenee: -) . Time of Occurrence:
12/17/2016 0410 • •
Name of Subject of Police Action: Address: Telephone No.:
Devante McLeod
Summons No.: Arrest o.: crop o.: Charges:

(Check One): - (Check One):


Ci Penal Law • Alcohol Beverage Control gi Other: Aided Report I3 Felony ip Misdemeanor id Violation
Details of Pollee Aotlon: . :
AT TPO Mr. Mcleod stated that whge,tie..wg.s: inside pf.. 1144 Lustioc.ated at225_47_,Streetlome perSon .
discharged pepper spray, Mr. Mcleod then started to have trouble breathing. Mr. Mdeod did loss conscience
and for a short period appeared to stop breathing he was transported VIA RMP 3227 to Lutheran Medical
Center. Mr Mcleod was conscience when he arrived at LMC. Mr. Mcleod also appeared to be very intoxicated.
Aided report prepared: 2016-072-2209 •

0 -4
Firearms Ararat/Seizures? NarcoticsArroapelzures? Nuisance Abatement Papers FonvardedlAllth
CI Yes Hi No ❑ Yes M No j 'CI yes Ili No
OTHER RESPONSE
FDNY Reeparalid During ThisAction? If "Yes," FDNYActivfty - Number Issued: Premises by FDNY?
1:1 Yes lNo . Notke(s) of1Aolation Violations Cl Yes No 1-4
Other Enforcem Unit Responded? Results: ti's
CI Yes No CZ>

1 i—
ni
foe: Stor.p\i-2 . •
Commanding Officer
17)
FORWARDMSREPORT TOMEBIFORCEMENTDIWSION,1POLICEPLAZA,ROOM17B0.IFINCIDENTDWOLVESANUNDERAGE 8ALEQA1DET°RAU/WARY
FOLIOS OFFICER,ANAFFIDAVITAgialBEFORWARDEDWITH THIs REPORE
POLICE ACTION
UCENSEDAINUCENSEDPREMISES
PD 310-150 (7-98)
Data: Unit Submitting Report:
03/24/2017 072 Special .Ops Lluetenant
PROMISE INFORMATION .•
AdOress:(Indlcate Illocution is known by an additional address) City County State ' Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn tangs NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SLA: 0 Unlicensed RILicensed License Number (Beglnewfth the Year of Expiration and the Number islocated at the top left comer. of License)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check One):
0 Bar el Social Club 0 Catering Hall Cl Grocery. E3 Pool Hall D Restaurant . 0 Booth! Stand
EfOther ff Other, Briefly Beecdoe: Night Club
Physical Layout:
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name of Owner of Building: Address: Telephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (Last,First,M.1) Command Telephone No.: Nu e. — Shield Number:
PO Lattanzi° 072 -
INCIDENT
Date of Occurrence: Time of Occurrence: .
12/06/2016 0317
Name of Subject of Poke Action: Te phone No.:
Devon Robinson •
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Comp No.: argea
. K18685374 Discon •
( one): . (Check One):
. . II2 Penal Law Cl Alcohol Beverage Control 0 Other: 0 Felony 0 Misdemeanor ef Violation
Details of Police Action:
AT TPO Mr Robinson who was intoxicated and ran out of Club Lust Located at 225 47 Street, he started to
yell that he was going to get a gun and come back causing everyone to feel threatened. upon stopping Mr>
Robinson he was found to be in possession of Marijuana, he alto had an active warrant.

0 irl
M
FirearmsArrespeizures?
0 Yee No
NarcoticsArrest/Seirores?
0 Yes PI No
Nuisance Abatejuent Papers Forwarded %Rh-this ifil
0 Yes in No • •
0 Z
ITV
$
OTHER RESPONSE
FDNY Responclitd During ibisAction? If FDNYActIvity - Number Issued: Premises Vacated by FDNY? a
0 Yes 111 No ___Notice(s) of Motatiou Violations El Yes No 8
o
ia
Other Enforosvnt Unit Responded? Resifts:
0 Yes in No

U \*Cflr
e
( 0)CALA.e.d7 °
emending Officer

FORWARD Ma FtEPORY TO VIOE ENFORCOPMENTOIVISION.1 POLICE PLAZA, ROOM 1200. IF INCRIENT INVOLVESAN UNDERAGE SALE TO A MOIST oRAuxuARY
POtiOR OPMCMR, ANAPPIDAVITSW RE FORARRORDINEM nits REPORT.
'POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
PD310-150 (7-98)
Date: Unit Stizmitting Report:
- 03/24/2017' • 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
Adciress:(Indloate If koation is known byan additional address) City County •State • ZO Code Floor
225 47th Street. Brooklyn K ings NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: • Community Board No..
Kings . 072 7
81A: CI Unlicensed Mk:Sneed License Numbe r:(Beginswith the Year of Expiration and the Number le located el the topleft comer of License)
Ser# 1273975
• besoriptlon (Check One):
CI Bar CI Social Club I:1 Catering Hall Cl Grocery 0 Pool Hall • Cl Restaurant El Booth / Stand
&that* ifOther, Briefly Describe: Night Club
Physical Layout:
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name of OWner of Building: Address: • Telephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (PrIni$ Name (Lest,FirstM.1.) - COmmand Iblaphone No.: Shield Number:
PO Rashevskly . 072
ID
Date of °eminence: Time of Occurrence:
11/06/2016 ' 0300 and 0430 •
Name of Subject of Police Action: Address: 'Upham No.: .
See Below SeeBelow .
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: Charges:
See below
eek One): (Check One):
r Penal Law • Alcohol Beverage Control II Other. • EI Felony . • Misdemeanor MI Violation
Details of Police Action: • . .
AT 0300 on 11-06-2017 a fight broke out in front of Club Lust located at 225 47 Street, one male Joseph
Rivera was going to be issued a C- summons but he gave a false name.Mr. Rivera was Arrested
#K16679701. On the same day at 0430 hours as the patrons were exiting the location several who were
intoxicated and act violently started to fight. After more Officers were called to scene to assist with crowd
control two female and one male patron was arrested a brought back to the 72nd Precinct. The male had a
warrant. Arrest # K16679709. Both females were issued C-summonses one was also in possession of
Marijuana

-CA
pvi
FirearmeArreetifielzures? NarcoticsArrest/Seizures? NuleanceAbatement Papers Forwarded With idpi
Yes • El No CI Yes Br No CI Yes El No
OTHER RESPONSE
FONYReeporellid During ThIsAction? "Yes," FDNYAcnutty-Number issued: Premises \heated by FDNY? . 0 00
0 Yes El No _Notice(e)ofVrolation Violations El Yes VS No
Other Entorcerept Unit Responded? Results:
0 Yes trn No
(,)
r-4
-,,„„
Commanding Officer

FoRWARDTHIS REPORT TO VICE ENPORCEMENTDIVENON,1 POLICE PLAZA,R001111200.IF INCIDENT INVOLVESAN UNDERAGESALETOACADBTORAUXILIARY


Palen (*MDR' ANAPPIDAVITME BE FORWARDEDWITH THIS REPORT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNUCENSED PREMISES
nue/
PD310-150 (7-98)
Date: Unit SubmittingRepot
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Uuetenant
PREMISEINFORMATION
Address:Pita:ate iflocationis knownby an additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
24 47th Street . Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct Communal/ Board No.:
Kings • 072 7
KA: D Unlicensed Qlucensed License umber. (Begins with the Year ofExpiration And the NumberIs located at the top left comer ofLicense)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check One):
D Bar 0 Social Club 0 CateringEall D Grocery CI PoolHall 0 Restaurant i3 Booth / Stand
d011ier Eater,BrieflyDescribe: Night Club
Physical Layout:
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name ofOvmerofBulicfnig: Address: lidephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICERINFORMATION
Rank (Print)Name 0-est.Firet.M.9 Command Telephone No.: Shield Numtier: .
PO Rashevskiy 072
INCIDENT
Date of Occurrence: Time of Occurrence:
11/28/2018 0345
Name of Subject of Police Action: Telephone No.:
Shaneika, Ellis
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: es:
4429323762 Discon
(1*dc One): (Check One):
MA Penal Law 0 AlcoholBeverage Control 0 Other: 0 Felony Et ilifiedemeanor if Violation
Details of Police &Alen:
• AT TPO a female that exited club lust located at 225 47 Street started to yell at scream at another patron who
also exited the Club. Mrs. Shaneika grabbed the hair of the other female and started to fight with her. The two
female were separated. No one wanted to pursue charges. Mrs SHaneika was issued a summons on the .
scene. .,

tin
0 oai

FirearmsArresUSelzures? Narcotics Arrest/Selzures? NuisanceAbatement Papers Forwarded -tio incident?


Dyes 1111 No DYes RI No DYes if/No
OTHER RESPONSE • g JO X C a)
FONT Respontd During ThisAction? If"Yes," FONYActivIty - Number Issued: Premiliesikcated by FDNY?'7] 3A-
Yes El No Notice(s) ofViolation Violations CI Yes Si No o n
cg, t ari
0
Other Enforcenvint Unit Responded? Results: 3
DYes BS No • T"
to• • -
`feto-

GC742.34a ..
Commanding Officer()

FORWARD11118 REPORT TO VICEENFORCEMENTDIMON,1 POLICEPLAZA,ROORN1200.WINCIDENTINVOLVESAN UNDERAGEMLE TO A CAPETORAUXILIARY


POLICEOFFICER. FORWARDEDWITHTHISREPORT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
mta•V
PD 310-150 (7-98)
Date: Unit SubmittingReport:
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
Address:(I ndloate Placation Is known by an additional address) City County State t cs Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings *NY 11220
flamer of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
MA: 0 9111:lensed RI Licensed License Number: (Beginswfth the Year of Expiration and the Number Is located attire top left comerof License)

Ser# 1273975
beecriptIon (Check One):
Bar 0 Social Club El Catering Hall 1:1 Grocery 0 Pool Hall Restaurant 0 Booth / Stand.
D
!!father If Other, Briefly Describe Night Club
Layout
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left,. one is love the other is called lust
Name of Ownerof13ulicling: Address: Telephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name .(Last,FIrstp1.11.) Command Telephone No.: Shield Number.
PO Fragoso 072
INCIDENT
Date of Occurrence: Time of Ocrourremen
02/19/2017 0340 •
Name Subject of Police Action: . 'telephone No.:
Kieth Stroy
Summons No.: Arrest .. omplamt No.: Charges:
4434684340 Consupton Of Alcohol in Public
(Check One): (Check One):
CI Penal Law El Alcohol Beverage Control pi Other: Admin Code • D Felony • Misdemeanor id Violation
Details of Pollee Action:
AT TPO Stroy was observed exiting the Club Lust located at 225 47 Street. He then pulled an open bottle
Hennessey from under his shirt and placed It near a car. He was then obserVed drinking form the bottle.
When asked why he had the bottle Mr. Stray said he paid Money for It and wanted to drink it. Mr Stray was
issued a C-Summons.

. . Ca
FirearmsAnispelzures? NarcodcsArreauSetzures? NuistmcsAba nt Papers Forwarded With trriAent?
0 Yes No 1:1 Yes fig Na CI Yes No
e. t
OTHER RESPONSE
FDNY Responded During ThisAction? ifinfes,u FDNYActivity - Number issued: • Premises Vacated by FDNY? te
0 Yes No Notice(s) of Violation Moladons Cl Yes of No =
-'0.-
Rf
9El 20
Other Enfomempt Unit Responded? Results:
El Yes BI No 0 0 feD
P.2
?LP" • ›*

GLAIZAZ t..,
4
Commanding Officer

FORWARD MISREPORT TO VICE ENFORCEMENTDIVISION,1 POLICE PLAZA, ROOM1200. IF INCIDENT INVOLVESAN UNDERAGE SAIrp ORAUXILIARY •
POLICE OFFICER, ANAPFIDAVITAIME BE FORWARDEDWITH Tlite REPoRT.
POLICE ACTION ,
LICENSED/UNLICiNSEDPREMISES
PD310-150(748)
Date:- UnitSubmittingReport
03/24/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
Addresei(indloate Violation islmown by an additional address) City County . State Zip Code Floor
. 225 47th Street Brooklyn ICngs NY 11220
Name ofPremise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Bomar- Precinct Community Board No.:
- Kings 072 7
SLA: D Unlicensed RE Licensed License Number: (Begtnswith the YearofExpiration andthe NumberIslocatedatihe topleft corner ofLicense)
Ser# 1273975
Description(Check One):
Bar 0 Social club 0 Catering Hall Cl Grocery 0 Pool Hall 0 Restaurant CI Booth / Stand
1140Iher IfOther, Brialy Describe: Night Club
PhyftlLayoht:
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name ofOwnerof • Address: Telephone No.
Unknown • Unknown
ARRESTINGOFFICERINFORMATION
Rank:(PIS)Name (Last,First.N1.1.) Command Telephone No.: Shield Number:
PO Ionashko 072
INCIDENT
Data ofOfturtenoe: Time ofOccurrence:
03/04/2017 0410
Name of Subject of Police Action:
Dupree, Plentis
Summons No.: Arrest .:
4430817678 Urinating in Public
(Med(One): (Check One):
Penal Law Cl AlcoholBeverage Control elother: Admin Cl Felony CI Misdemeanor violation
Details ofMk* Action: •
AT TPO while the Officer was doing a directed in front of Club Lust Located at 225 47 Street, he observed a
pairon.exit the club and being intoxicated he urinated right in front of the location. The patron was issued a C
-summons.

REcE
.MAR 8.0 201i
FirearmeArrest/Seizures? Narcotics Arrest/Selzures? NuisanceAbatemant Papers F
D Yes lid No CI Yes vfNo 0 Yes 81No ppiriv *„,,,WIR A
OTHERRESPONSE 918sISEL
FDNY Respond During This/Won? Irreg." FDNYActivity Number issued Premisesl/acated by FDNY? WYC
D Yes 0- No _Notice(s)onliokdkin _Violations El Yes rif
No
other Enforcerront Unit Responded? Results:
D Yes 0 No

trt i'6' •
t66a-it:Va.
Commanding Officer

FORWARD R418 REPORT TO VICE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,1 POLICE PLAZA, ROOM1200.1F MOMENT INVOLVESAN UNDERAGE 8ALETOA CADETOFtAUXILIARY
POLICE OPMER,AN AFFIDAIRTESS/ BE FORWARDEMMTH TH18 REPORT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
PD 310450 (7-98)
• Date: Unit Submitting Report:
03/25/2017 072 Special Ops Liuetenant.
PREMISE INFORMATION
Address:(Indicate Iflocationis known by an additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name ofPremise: 'Telephone No:
Love and Lust
borough: Precinct Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
• SIA: CI Unlicensed Pd Licensed :License Number (Begins wkh the YearofExpiration and the Numberislocated at the topleltcorner oflicense)
Ser# 1273975
Description(Check One):
D Bar D Social Club D Catering Hall 0 Grocery 0 Pool Half • 0 Restaurant • 0 Booth /.Stand
• IdOther IfOtherAdelymeate: Night Club
P_hyttical Layout . •
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name ofOwnerofSuiting: • Address: Telephone No.
Unknown • Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICERINFORMATION
Rank: (Pdnt) Name (last,FiratiV1.1.) 'Command Telephone No.: u Shield Number.
PO Manney 072
MOMENT
Date of Occurrence: Timeof Occurrence: •
03/25/2017 J 0440 . • •
Name of Subject of Police Action: Address: • Telephone No.:
Regina Morning •
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: Charges:

(Check One): (Check One):
0 Penal Law 0 Alcohol Beverage Control Ed Other Aided Report Cl Felony Cl Misdemeanor it Violation
Details ofPollee Action:
AT TPO Mrs. Morning's friends stated that she was drinking inside:of of the club Lust located at 225 47 Street,
Mrs Morning became so Intoxicated that she passed out, her friends carried her outside. Mrs. Morning was
unresponsive and vomiting. Mrs. Morning was removed to Lutheran Medical Canter Via EMS Bus# 48G by
EMS shield # 1538. Aided Card Prepared, Aided's DOB years old.

RECEIVED
APR 3 2017
STATE LIQUOR AUTTIORFIT
FlreanneArrest/Selzures? NarcodcsArrest/Seizures? Nuisance AbeVentPaGgfitiarakiegGRINISEncident?
yes iff No 0 Yes Elf No 0 Yea IS No
OTHERRESPONSE
FONY Respontirl During ThIsAdlon? Mee," FDNYActivity -Number issued: PremisesUscabsdby FONT?
1:3 Yes in No Notice(s) ofIdolation Violations CI Yes RI No
Other Enforcerniont Unit Responded? Results:
CI Yee 0 No

cAst fts-,..2c,rek*
Commanding Officer

FORWARD TIESREPORT TO VMS ENFOROENIENT 'NV181014,1•POLICEPLAZA, ROOM1200.IFINCIDENTR4VOLVESANUNDERAGESALE TO A CMCETORAUXUARY


POLICE WOOL ANAPMDAVffMan FORWARDEDWITHTHIS REPORT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSED PREMISES
PD 310-180 (7-98)
Date: Unit Submitting Report:
05-25-2017 . 072 Special Ops Liuetenant
PREMISE INFORMATION


AddresslIndicate If location Is known by an additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct: Community Board No.:
Kings 072 7
SLA: 0 Unlicensed FiLicensed License Number: (Begins with the Year of Expiration and the Number is located at the top left corner of License)
Ser# 1273975
Description (Check One):
0 Bar 0 Social Club CI Catering Hall 0 Grocery El Pool Hall 0 Restaurant El Booth Stand
lifOther If Other, BrieflyDescnbe: Night Club
Physical Layout
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one on the right one on the left, one is love the other is called lust
Name.of Owner of Building: Address: Telephone No.
Unknown Unknown
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank: (Print) Name (Last,First,M.L) Command Telephone No.: Tax Number. Shield Number:
PO lonahko 072
INCIDENT
Date of Occurrence: lime of Occurrence:
05-21-2017 0430
Name of Subject of Police Action: Telephone No.:
Eric.Keys
SumMons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: Charges:

(Check One): (Check One):


CI Penal Law CI Alcohol Beverage Control Other: Aided CI Felony 0 Misdemeanor t1f1 Violation
Details of Police Action:
AT TPO Mr. Keys exited club Lust located at 226 47 Street. Mr Keys was a patron at teh location and was
drinking alcohol. Mr. Keys became so intoxicated that he lost consciouses. Mr Keys was treated at the scene
by EMT's but was then removed to Lutheran Medical Cent to treated for Alcohol overdose. ACR #
91151016 CEIVE
MAY 30 .117
STATE LIQUOR Ai vokrry
OFFICE GI, COUNSEL

FhiarmsArrest/,Selanes? Narr.otics AnestiSelzures? Nuisance Abatement Papers Forwarded With This Incident?
0 Yes EI No 0 Yes if No CI Yes RI No
OTHER RESPONSE
FDNY Respondpd During This Action? If "Yes," FDNYActivity - Number Issued: Premises Vacated by FDNY?
1:1 Yes RI No Notice(s) of Violation Violations 0 Yes lig No
Other Enforcement Unit Responded? Results:
13 Yes 6#1 No

Commanding Officer

FORWARD THIS REPORT TO VICE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,1 POUCE PLAZA, ROOM1200. IF INCIDENT INVOLVES AN UNDERAGE SALE TOACADET OR AUXILIARY
POUCE OFFICER, AN AFFIDAVITMUST ME FORWARDED WITH THIS REPORT.
POLICE ACTION
LICENSED/UNLICENSEDPREMISES
P0310-160(7-98)
Mt: Unit Submitting Report:
06-04-2017 072 Special Ops Lieutenant
PREMISE INFORMATION
Addresslindicateiflocation is known by an additional address) City County State Zip Code Floor
225 47th Street Brooklyn Kings NY 11220
Name of Premise: Telephone No.:
Love and Lust
Borough: Precinct Community Board No •
Kings 072

7
SLA: 0 Unlicensed ligLicensed License Number: (Begins with the Year ofExpigioijand the Number is located at the top left corner of License)
C
Ser# 1273975 NZ EIVED
Description (Check One): 12
0 Bar 0 Social Club 0 Catering Hall 0 Grocery 0 PoollitialY 2013 Restaurant 0 Booth / Stand
gOther IfOther,BrieflyDescribe: Night Club STATE LIQI•linrt
PhysicalLayout • OFFICEIN'
Walk up the stairs there are two main bars one , his
on the right one on the IirkstRall love the other is called lust
Name of Owner ofBuilding: Address:Unknown Telephone No.
UnknoWn
ARRESTING OFFICER INFORMATION
Rank (Print) Name (Lestfirst,111.1.) Command Telephone No.: Tax Number Shield Number:
PO lonashko 072 959704
INCIDENT •
Date of Occurrence: Time of Occurrence:
06-04-2017 0330
Name of Subject ofPolice Action: Address: Telephone No.:
Jerimiah, Kanasha 3608 Holland Avenue
Summons No.: Arrest No.: Complaint No.: Charges:
107637614 2017-072-2998 Assault 2
(qt. eck One): (Cileck One):
IC PenalLaw 0 Alcohol Beverage Control 0 Other. M Felony 0 Misdemeanor CI Violation
Details ofPolice Action:
AT TPO Mrs Jerimiah, who is employed by Club Lust as a dancer, got into an dispute over money with
another employee. Melanie David is employed as a bartender. During the dispute Mrs David stated that Mrs
Jerimiah jumped off the stage she dancing on and attacked Mrs. David hitting her about three (3) times with
her hight heel shoe causing injuries. Aidied card prepared 1084. CV was treated at the scene by EMS.

FirearmsArrest/Selzures7 Narcotics Arrest/Seizures? Nuisance Abatement Papers Forwarded With This Incident? . •
El Yes lif No 1:1 Yes tit No 0 Yes iiif No
OTHERRESPONSE
FDNY Respond0 During This Action? IfftYes," FDNYActMty - Number Issued: Premises Vacated by FDNY?
CI Yes Si No Notke(s) ofViolation Violations 0 Yes No
Other Enforoernfint.Unk Responded? Results:
0 Yes RI No

Commanding Officer

FORWARD THISREPORT TO VICEENFORCEMENT DIVISION,1POLICEPLAZA, ROOM 1200.IF INCIDENTINVOLVES AN UNDERAGE SALETOA CADET OR AUXILIARY
POLICE OFFICER,ANAFFIDAVITNIUSTBEFORWARDED WITH THIS REPORT.
NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY
Hearing Bureau
317 Lenox Avenue
New York, New York 10027
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE

Serial Number: 1273975, KINGS OP 1273975


Docket Number(s): 1767-2017
Case Number(s):. 114882

Licensee/Principal: Jairam, Imran A

_ .
Licensed Premises: KB Venture Group LLC D/B/A Love & Lust
225 47th St
Brooklyn, NY 11220

BEFORE: Marilyn D. Piken, Administrative Law Judge


Hearing Date(s): September 8, 2017
Hearing Location: Hearing Bureau, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, NY 10027
Notice of Pleading(s): July 11, 2017
Attorney for Authority: Thomas Rizzuti, Esq.

Attorney for Licensee: Kerry Katsorhis, Esq.


77-53 Main St.
Flushing, NY 11367
(718) 591-8900
WItneris(es) for Authority: SLA Investigator Stravalle
Witness(es) for Licensee: Self

Other Persons Present None

Authority's Exhibits: Case No. 114682


SLA Ex. 1: Notice of Pleading .
SLA Ex. 2: Application for Corporate Change
SLA Ex. 3: SLA Approval of Corporate Change
SLA Ex. 4: Affidavit with bank records
SLA Ex. 5: Investigator's report
SLA Ex. 8: Memorandum
Licensee's Exhibits: Lic Ex. A: Certificate of Occupancy 8/2/113 — 10/31/16

1
• Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. lmran A Jairam

Lic Ex. B: Place of Assembly Certificate of Operation —


Jan. 26, 2017
Lie Ex. C: Place of Assembly Certificate of Operation —
June 20, 2016
Lic Ex. D. Certificate of Occupancy 7/31/17 — 9/29/17
Lic Ex. E: Consumer Affairs Cabaret License 8114/17 —
9130/18
Lie Ex. F: Certificate of Disposition
Lic Ex. G: Dept. of State Private Investigator License
Lic Ex. H: Current bank signature cards
Lic Ex.!: Summation
Hearing Recorded: Digitally
CHARGES)
Docket No. 1757-2017/Case No. 114882

1. That the licensee made its license available to a person not specified in the License,' in
that the licensee permitted persons not authorized by the State Liquor Authority, to avail
itself of the license privilege from imran Jairam, all cause for revocation, cancellation or
suspension of the license in accordance with Section 111 of ABC Law.
2. That in connection with the licensee's renewal application; the licensee submitted a
false material statement or suppressed information concerning the establishment's
operation as adult entertainment; all cause for revocation, cancellation or suspension of
the license in accordance with rule 36.1(b) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9
• NYCRR 53.1(b)].
3. That in connection with the licensee's renewal application; the licensee submitted a
false material statement or suppressed information concerning the establishments
maximum occupancy; all cause for revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license
in accordance with rule 36.1(b) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR
53.1(b)].
4. That on and before July 5, 2017, the licensed premises has ceased to be operated as a
bona fide premises within the contemplation of the license issued for such premises, all
cause for revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in
accordance with rule 38.1 (d) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR
53.1(d)].
5. That on October 6, 2018, In violation of subdivision 12 of section 106 of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Law, the licensee has failed to keep and maintain adequate (and
accurate) records of business transacted by the licensee on the licensed premises.
6. That on October 6, 2016, the licenseie violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with all applicable building codes
and/or fire regulations regarding locked exits) [BC 1008.2]; all cause to warrant
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(0 of
the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 63.1(0].

Page 2 of18
•Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran AJairam

7. That on October 6, 2018, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with all applicable building codes
and/or fire regulations regarding blocked exit(s) [FC 801.6]; all cause to warrant
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(f) of
the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
8. That on or before October 6, 2016, in violation of subdivision 3-b of section 102 of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the licensee purchased and/or received alcoholic
beverages for resale from a person not duly authorized to sell same for resale.
9. That on October 6, 2016, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with governmental regulations
regarding employment of security guards, in that the establishment did not have a valid
contract with a legitimate security guard company [GBL 70.2, NYC AC 28-117.4]; all
cause to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance
with rule 36.1(f) of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
10.That on October 6, 2016, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 46.3] in that the licensee did not conform with all applicable building codes
and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations, in that the establishment had a
CCTV camera in the locker rooms [Labor Law 203(c)]; all cause to warrant revocation,
cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(f) of the Rules of
the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
11.That on October 6, 2016, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with all applicable building codes
and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations in that the establishment stored
or possessed fireworks on the premises [Penal Law 270.00(2)01W; all cause to warrant
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(f) of
the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
12.That on or before October 6, 2016, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 9941 of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the licensee altered the licensed premises without the
permission of the State Liquor Authority first obtained.
13.That on October 21, 2016, the licensee failed to furnish or disclose information
demanded by an agent of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
14.That on October 6, 2018, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9
NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with local governmental regulations
regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be dancing on the licensed
. premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret license; all cause to warrant
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 38.1(f) of
the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].
15.That on October 6, 2016, the licensee failed to conform with all representations set forth
in the application, or approved amendments thereto, under with such license was
applied for and issued; all cause for revocation, cancellation or suspension of the
license in accordance with rule 54.8 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9
NYCRR 48.8].
16. That on October 6, 2016, the licensee engaged in certain conduct, to wit submitting a
fraudulent document to BCI Charles Stravaile and holding that fraudulent document out

Page 3 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. lmran A Jairam

as a contract with a bona fide security guard company; and that the foregoing conduct
was of such improper nature as to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the
license in accordance with rule 36.1(n) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority p
NYCRR 53.1(n)].
STANDARD Cr REVIEW
Under the law of the State of New York, in an administrative proceeding as we have
here, I am required by law to find whether there is 'substantial evidence' to sustain each
and every charge brought against the Licensee by the Authority.
"Substantial evidence is 'less than a preponderance of evidence' and requires only that
there be enough 'relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to
support a conclusion or ultimate fact' In m 25-24 Café Concerto Ltd. v. New Yolk
State Liquor Authority, 65 A.D.3d 280, 265 (181 Dept. 2009) citing 300 Gramatan Ave.
Assoc. v. State Div. ofHuman Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 178, 180-81 (1978). See S&R Lake

Lounge, Inc. V. State Liquor Authority, 87 N.Y.2d 206 (1995). The question... is
whether a conclusion or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably—probatively and
logically." City of Utica Board of Water Supply v. New York State Health Department,
96 A.D.2d 710,465 N.Y.S.2d 365, 366 (4th Dept 1983) (citations omitted).
Hearsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination and, if sufficiently
probative, it alone may constitute substantial evidence. Café La China Corp. v. State
Liquor Authority, 43 A.D.3d 280 (1St Dept. 2007) (dtations omitted). Uncontroverted
hearsay can form the entire basis for an administrative determination Gray v. Adduol, 73
N.Y.2d 741 (1988) (citations omitted).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The hearing was held on September 8, 2017 before Administrative Law Judge
Marilyn D. Piken. The licensee's attorney made a continuous objection to hearsay and
specifically objected to SLA Exhibit 5 on the grounds that it was not the best evidence.
SLA Exhibit 5, the investigator's report, was admitted into evidence over objection.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Katsorhis requested the opportunity to obtain
the transcript of the hearing and to submit a written summation. It was agreed that the
summation would be due two (2) weeks after receipt of the transcript and that Mr.
Rizzuti would have one (1) week to reply. October 16, 2017 was set as a control date.
The transcript arrived, Mr. Katsorhis was given until October 20, 2017 to submit a
written summation. The summation (Lic. Ex. I) was received on October 19, 2017. Mr.
Rizzuti requested that his time to respond to the written summation be extended from

Page 4 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Ucensee: Mr. Imran Mairam

October 27, 2017 to October 30, 2017. That request was granted. The Authority's
memorandum (SLA Ex. 8) was received on October 30, 2017.

FINONGS OF FACT

BASED UPON the testimony and record in this case, I, as the Administrative Law
Judge, hereby make the following findings of fact, law, and opinion:
Case No. 114682

Investigator Stravalle went to the licensed premises on October 6, 2016 at 11:45


P.M. as part of a MARCH (Multi Agency Response to Community Hotspots) operation.
Prior to the start of the operation, he reviewed the relevant documents and took hard
copies of the documents to the inspection.

As he approached the premises with Lieutenant Meyer of the 72nd precinct, he noted
that there were metal barriers in front of the premises that were blocking egress and
that the two (2) roll down gates were not locked in the open position while the premises
was open.

He spoke to Mr. Jairam, who accompanied him on the inspection for approximately
two (2) hours. The emergency light at the front door was not working. The emergency
lights on thb first and 2nd floor landings were not working. There was a slide bolt on an
emergency exit and no lighting in the rear staircase,

There are two bars on the second floor. One of the bars was supposed to be U-
shaped. The bar was in fact straight along the waQ. One of the rooms is called Love; the
other room is called Lust. There is a platform in Lust where girls in bikinis dance. He did
not see any nudity but considered the premises to be adult entertainment.

There were thirty-six (38) bottles of Heineken beer in the refrigerator near the second
bar. The beer did not have $.05 deposit as required by New York State. He therefore
concluded that the bottles were not purchased in New York. Mr. Jairam was unable to
provide receipts for the beer. The investigator was advised that the beer was purchased
in New Jersey.

In addition to not having the records for the purchase of beer, the cabaret license
was expired, there was no affidavit of flame proofing for a curtain, the monthly fire
extinguisher maintenance tags were expired, and there was no catering permit. He did
not see any patrons dancing, but he did see a couple of female employees dancing. He
did not see any lap dancing and he did not see any topless dancing. The cabaret
certificate was posted•but had expired on Sept. 30, 2018.
Mr. Jairam was issued a summons (SLA Ex. 6 Attachment 2A) for a case of
fireworks that were located hi a storage room (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 3A photo).

Page 5 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 2273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran A Jairam

The investigator gave a letter to Mr. Jairam advising him what documents he
needed. Mr. Katsorhis, Mr. Jairam's attorney, e-mailed the requested items showing
correction of some of the conditions. The security contract was with Entourage security,
which is not a valid security guard company.

The occupancy sign at the premises showed lawful occupancy of 640 people. The
SLA application — the establishment questionnaire (SLA Ex. 5, Attachment lc, page 11)
stated 274 people; the cabaret sign indicated 200 people. The occupancy sign was not
framed.
The method of operation (SEA Ex. 5 Attachment 1-C page 13) indicates that the
premises is a cabaret/nightclub. He believes that adult entertainment should have been
checked. The licensee renewal application (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 4C). He also believes
that since the capacity is more than 600, the large-scale night club should have been
checked.

There was a closed-circuit camera in the dancers' locker room. The e-mail showed
that the cameras have been removed.

He received the bank records and noticed a second account number. He


subpoenaed the records from the second account. The bank records indicate that
Monique Mayers-Callender is a signatory on the account and is listed as a "member".
He researched Ms. Mayers and determined that she is the CFO for one of Curtis
Jackson's (A/K/A Fiddy Cent) companies. The cancelled checks (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment
5G) were signed by Kevin Burch through September 1, 2016 and by Ms. Mayers
starting on September 7, 2016. None of the checks were signed by Mr. Jairam, the
licensee.
Imran Jairam Is thirty (30) years old and the owner of the licensed premises. He was
a 50% owner until the end of August 2016, when he bought his partners Kevin Burch's
shares. He was not experienced in running the business side of the premises and asked
60 Cent, a family friend for assistance during the transition. 50 cent allowed him to use
the services of Monique Mayers to teach him how to balance a check book and to
operate the business side. He did not pay Ms. Mayers for her services and she no
longer helps him with the business. Although she has not signed any checks for several
months, he did not remove Ms. Mayers' name from the bank signatory cards until
August 2017 (Lic Ex. H).

The licensed premises has two (2) separate rooms. Each room is a cabaret with
eating and drinking permitted (Lic Ex. A — Certificate of Occupancy). There are current
Certificates of Operation for a Place of Assembly for each room (Lic. Ex. B). The
permissible occupancy for one room is 220 people; the permissible occupancy for the
other room is four hundred and twenty (420) people, allowing a total permissible

Page 6 of18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran A Jairam

occupancy of six hundred and sixty (660) people. He has been applying for and
receiving temporary Certificates of Occupancy (Lic. Ex. D). He applied to renew the
cabaret license. The Dept. of Consumer Affairs did not renew his license until August
14, 2017 (Lic. Ex. E).

The fireworks were previously put in bottles for bottle service. Although he did not
use the fireworks, there was a box in storage. The possession of fireworks summons
was dismissed (Lie. Ex. F). He continued with the same security guard company that his
partner used. He believed that they were licensed. He did not check to see if they were
a registered security guard company. They do have a private investigator license (Lie.
Ex. G).

The bar in the room entitled Love used to be U-shaped. it is now straight. He does
not know If Mr. Burch, his former partner, notified SLA of the change. • '
There is a stage In the Lust section of the club. They have musical artistsand bands
perform. There are women on stage wearing bikinis, who dance. The women are not
topless. There are no side rooms for lap dances.
OPINION
Charge 1;

Imrarn Jairam made his license


available to an unauthonz person no spec n the license and not authorized by
the SLA.

According to Section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, a license issued to
any person for any licensed premises "shall not be transferable to any other person or
to any other premises . . . except in the discretion of the authority. It shall be available
only to the person therein specified, and only for the premises licensed and no other
except if authorized by the Authority. . . .° A Licensee permits other persons to avail
themselves of Licensee's license when Licensee allows those persons to "operate[ the
[Licensed Premises] for extended periods of time without [Licensee's' participation." It
is not required that the avaiiee make a profit from the use of the liquor license. See In
The Matter Of Happy Landing Lounge, Inc. v. State Lig Auth., 219 A.D.2d 786 (3rd
Dept. 1995).
The Authority relies on the fact that there is another signatory on the bank account and
that checks through September 1, 2016 were written by Kevin Burch and thereafter,
checks were written by Monique Mayers.
I credit Mr. Jairam's explanation that he is the sole proprietor, that he was new to the
business side of operating the busin emporarily getting help with that
aspect of the business.

Page 7 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. bran A Jairam

Charge 2;

insufficient evidence to

The zoning resolution, ZR 12-10 defines adult establishment.

Adult Establishment An "adult establishment" is a Commercial


establishment which is or includes an adult book store, adult eating or
drinking establishment, adult theater, or other adult commercial
establishment, or any combination thereof, as defined below:

1(b) An adult eating or drinking establishment is an eating or drinking


establishment which regularly . features in any portion of such
establishment any one or more of the following:
(1) live performances which are characterized by an emphasis on
"specified anatomical areas" or "specified sexual activities"; or...

(3) employees who, as part of their employment, regularly expose to


patrons "specified anatomical areas"; and which is not customarily open to
the general public during such features because it excludes or restricts
minors.

(b) For purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (b) and (c), "specified sexual
activities" are: (I) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or
arousal; (ii) actual or simulated acts of human masturbation, sexual
intercourse or sodomy; or (iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human
genitals, pubic region, buttock, anus or female breast.

(c) For purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), "specified anatomical
areas" are: (I) less than completely and opaquely concealed: (ea) human ,
genitals, pubic region, (bb) human buttock, anus, or (cc) female breast
below a point immediately above the top of the areoia; or (ii) human male
genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely
concealed.

Investigator Stavelie testified that the women he saw dancing were scantily clad. The
licensee testified that the women who dance wear bikinis. In the Method of Operation
(SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 1C), gedethatathlir*Vouldobe
111164M11404004991019949augb
epretraiseegiammarialtAehtedalainat
pahargegfonsu A gofelsematedalgattitefitebt itheitW'

Page 8 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Numbed* 114682
Licensee: Mr. IMran A Jairam

zfa,\_, )9BANWitiunent
ffile

Charge 3;
There is substantial evidence to show that the licensee submitted a false material
statement or suppressed information concerning the establishment's maximum
capacity.
The Establishment Questionnaire (SLA Ex. 5, Attachment 1C) shows a maximum
occupancy of 274; the occupancy sign that was posted (SLA Ex. 5, Attachment 3A,
Page 2 of 11) indicates a legal occupancy of 640 persons; and the certificate of
occupancy (SLA Ex. 5, Attachment 4B) indicates that there are two rooms; one with a
capacity of 420 people and the second room with a capacity of 220 people, for a total of
680 people.
The licensed premises has a certificate of occupancy for two separate rooms. Both
investigator Stravalle and Mr. Jairam testified that there are two separate rooms. The
application for the license indicates two (2) rooms what a maximum legal occupancy of
two hundred and seventy (274) (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 4E) people.

The permissible occupancy level submitted to the Authority is significantly less than the
actual allowable occupancy. The discrepancy is so large1 that it constitutes suppressed
information. akinha. :t19 08ANNIMI

Charge 4;

P d 1-•
the licensed
premises ceas = • to be operated as a • • na • e p - or contends that
the premises is being operated as a large-scale night club with a capacity of more than
six hundred (800) people instead of as a night club/cabaret as stated in the Method of
Operation (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 1C).

Rule 36.1(d) of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(d)] allows the Authority to
revoke, cancel, or suspend a license:
Where any licensed premises ceases to be operated as a bona fide
premises within the contemplation of the license issued for such premises,
in the judgment of the Authority.

• 1Three hundred and eighty-six (386) more people are lawfully allowed In the premises than was disclosed on the
Establishment Questionnaire.

Page 9 of18
. Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran A Jalrarn

The licensee is required to operate its business as contemplated by the type of license it
received from the SLR. I find that the premises is operating as a night club/cabaret as
per its method of operation.2

operate as a bona e premises in vi la o ru 36. (d).


itteltili .

Charge 5:

31-11"8110011VOROSIMAMOMMO
to k equate (and accurate) records of business transacted by the
licensee on the licensed premises. Section 106(12) states In pertinent part that "(e)ach
retail licensee for on-premises consumption shall keep and maintain upon the licensed
premises, adequate records of all transactions involving the business transacted by
such license which shall show the amount of alcoholic beverages, In gallons, purchased
by such licensee..."

The licensee produced all receipts except for the purchase of thirty-six (36) bottles of
Helnekin, which were kept in a separate refrigerator. I credit Mr. Jairam's testimony that
he purchased the beer near his home in New Jersey for his family and friends, who
were coming to visit the premises for the first time now that he was the sole owner.
Although in Mel Chi Lig. Corp. v. N.Y. State Liq. Auth., 195 A.D.2d 270 (1st Dept. 1993),
the court held that a licensee's purchase of liquor for personal use at a Christmas party
was sufficient evidence to sustain a technical violation of the regulation, I find that the
cited case involved the purchase of $41195,89 in alcohol In 1889 and that the instant
case involves the purchase of thirty-six (36) bottles of Heineken beerlitAaglaktilej
IMIefigebiltlitekeiltbeliNatitikatVetalhatU811109/404001190:1

lbwtangv , latiidevikstoiskatillatlin0 ' 041


01 0590*.
beer were part of the business of the licensed premises. The Charge for allure to keep
accurate records showing the amount of alcohol purchased by the licensee is not
sustained.

2 The significant difference in the occupancy of the premises is discussed in Charge 3.


3 The cited case can further be distinguished on the grounds that the licensee purportedly made conflicting
statements regarding the purpose of the alcohol.

Page 10 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
licensee: Mr. Imran A Jairam

Charge 6:

There is substantial evidence to show that on October 6, 2016 the licensee violated rule
54.3 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority in that the licensee did not conform with
all applicable building codes, and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations.
Rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.3] provides:

The Authority expects all on-premises licensees, regardless of type of


premises, to conform with all applicable building codes, fire, health, safety
and governmental regulations.

Budding Code 1008.2 pertains to gates and provides:

Gates serving the • means of egress system shall comply with the
requirements of this section. Gates used as a component in a means of
egress shad conform to the applicable requirements for doors.
Building Code 1008.1.3 provides:

Special doors and security grilles shall comply with the requirements of
Sections 1008.1.3.1 through 1008.1.3.5.
Building Code 1008.1.3.5 requires that security grilles remain secured In the full open
position while they are occupied by the general public

• The roil down gates were not locked in the open position while the building was
occupied. The Charge for failure to comply with all applicable building codes is
sustained.

By way of mitigation, this condition was corrected on or before October 19, 2016.
Charge 7:

litYWO ' that on October 8, 2016 the licensee violated rule


. of e Rules of the State Liquor Authority in that it did not conform with all
applicable building codes, and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations. Rule
54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.3) provides:

The Authority expects all on-premises licensees, regardless of type of


premises, to conform with all applicable building codes, fire, health, safety
and governmental regulations.
Ad. Code 29- 801.6 pertains to obstructed exits and provides:

Page 11of18
• Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran A Jairam

The required width of any portion of a means of egress shall not be


obstructed by any furnishing, decorative vegetation, decoration or scenery
nor shall such furnishing, decorative vegetation, decoration or scenery
obstruct any exit or the visibility thereof.

The investigator's report alleges that the front egress was blocked by metal barriers,
another emergency exit was blocked by a mop and bucket, and a third exit was blocked
by a plastic garbage can (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 3A, photos on pages 1, 5, and 10).

The licensee did not contest the facts but stated by way of mitigation that the conditions
were corrected on or before October 19, 2016, Based on the foregoing, the Charge for
failure to conform to all building and/or fire codes is sustained.
Charge 8:

IFAMOSableatiffiliol
illimandirASSIME190.#0.M.AML ii19% cAlever89,44MItiO_Waw
requires that

No retail licensee shall purchase, agree to purchase or receive any


alcoholic beverage except from a person duly licensed within the state by
the liquor authority to sell such alcoholic beverage at the time of such
agreement and sale to such retail licensee, except as provided for in
section eighty-five or ninety-nine-g of this chapter.

I credit that the subject beer was kept In a separate refrigerator, was for the licensee's
friends and family, and was not for resale as specifically alleged in the charge. The
Charge is not sustained.

Charge 9;

There is substantial evidence to show that on October 6, 2016, the licensee violated
rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.3] regarding employment of
security guards.

AD Code §28-117.4 refers to places of assembly and states:


Security guards. In the case of a certificate holder that offers for sale food
and/or beverages for on-premises consumption, but not including
establishments operated by a not-for-profit corporation, and employs or
uses the services of a security guard, as that term is defined in subdivision
six of section eighty-nine of the general business law, such certificate

4 Full discussion In Charge 5.

Page 12 of18
. Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Numbed* 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran A Jairam

holder shall comply with the provisions of article 7-A of the general
business law, shall obtain proof that such security guard is registered
pursuant to article 7-A of the general business law, shall maintain such
proof in a readily available location, in accordance with rules promulgated
by the commissioner during all hours in which such place of
assembly is open to the public, shall maintain a roster of all security
guards working at any given time when such place of assembly is open
to the public, and shall require each security guard to maintain on his or
her person proof of registration at all times when on the premises.

Article 7-A § 89-f of the General Business Law defines security guard company:

5. "Security guard company" shall mean any person, firm, limited liability
company, corporation, public entity or subsidiary or department of such
firm, limited liability company, corporation or public entity employing one or
more security guards or being self-employed as a security guard on
either a proprietary basis for its own use or on a contractual basis for use
by another person, firm, limited liability company, corporation, public entity
or subsidiary thereof within the state.
Article 7-A § 89-g (1) of the General Business Law restricts the employment of security
guards by a security guard company.

The. licensee acknowledged that it had a contract with a private investigator firm and not
a proprietary security guard firm, as required by the cited sections of law. The Charge
for failure to comply with governmental regulations regarding security guards is
sustained.

Charne 10:

A • 2017 the licensee violated rule


54.3 of the Rules of the State Liquor n that it did not conform with all
applicable building codes, and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations. Rule
54.3 of the Rules of the Authority (9 NYCRR 48.3] states:

The Authority expects all on-premises licensees, regardless of type of


premises, to conform with all applicable building codes, fire, health, safety
and governmental regulations.

Section 203-c of the Labor Law pertains to employee privacy protection and states:
1. No employer may cause a video recording to be made of an employee
in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for
employees to change their clothes, unless authorized by court order.

Page 13 of 38
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Numbed* 114682
Licensee: Mr. imran A Jairam

In violation of the Labor Law, the licensee had closed circuit TV cameras in the
changing room. The licensee did not contest the charge, but stated that the cameras
were removed immediately. The Charge for failure to comply with governmental
regulations is sustained.

Charoe 11:
There is substantial evidence to show that on October 6, 2016 the licensee violated rule
54.3 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority in that it did not conform with all
applicable building codes, and/or fire, health, safety and governmental regulations. Rule
54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.31provides:

The Authority expects all on-premises licensees, regardless of type of


premises, to conform with all applicable building codes, fire, health, safety
and governmental regulations.
Penal Law 270.00(2)(111) provides:"
(ill) any person who shall possess, use, explode or cause to explode
any fireworks or dangerous fireworks is guilty of a violation;...
The licensee acknowledged that there were fireworks in storage and stated that the
fireworks were not being used. The licensee possessed fireworks. The Charge for
failure to comply with governmental regulations is sustained. gyawayAtimifigationethe
tritagettindlyererrebeinsmpark,

Charge 12:

There is substantial evidence to show that on October 6, 2016, the licensee altered the
licensed premises without the permission of the State Liquor Authority.

Section 99-d (1) of the Alcohol Beverage Control Law provides in pertinent part:
Before any substantial alteration to a licensed premises may be
undertaken by or on the behalf of any licensee except a micro-winery, a
farm winery or a roadside farm market, 'the licensee shall make an
application to the liquor authority for permission to effect such alteration.
. A substantial alteration shall include any enlargement or contraction of a
licensed premises whether indoors or outdoors; any physical change that
reduces the visibility that existed at the time of licensing; any other
physical changes in the interior of a licensed premises that materially
affect the character of the premises; and, in the case of establishments
licensed for consumption on the premises, any material changes to the

Page 14 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. lmran AJairam

dining or kitchen facilities, or any change in the size or location of any


bar...

The diagram in the application (SLA Ex. 5 Attachment 1G) shows a U-shaped bar, the
actual bar was rectangular and was located straight against the wall. The licensee did
not contest that the shape of the bar did not conform to the diagram, but argued that the
licensee could easily have filed an amendment regarding the shape of the bar, and that
the change is shape does not give rise to the charge that an unauthorized alteration
took place after the license was issued.
The cited section of law prohibits any change In the size or location of the bar. The
Authority has proven by substantial uncontroverted evidence that the shape of the bar
has changed. The Charge for altering the premises without the permission of the State
Liquor Authority is sustained.

Charm 13:

MI6 _.e4641, 1104i 700.10061611%


rolinkalkinformationidi .I1ifs' itteolAutlitilitv
In the Authority's Memorandum (SLA Ex. 6), Mr. Rizzuti alleges that Mr. Katsorhis, the
licensee's attorney, failed to furnish Investigator Stravalle the opening documents for its
bank account showing that Monique S Mayers-Callender is a member and a signatory
to the bank account. In page 4 of his report (SLA Ex. 6) under the heading "undisclosed
business interest", Mr. Stravalle states "banking records submitted by the licensee show
that anIndividual by the name of Monique S Mayers-Callender is listed as a signer...".

Investigator Stravalle requested "bank statements last 12 months" and "signature card f/
bank all authorized signers must be listed (SLA Ex. 1H). The requested information
was fotwarded to the Authority on October 19, 2016 (SLA Ex. 5, Attachments 5A, SF,
and 5G).

The Authority did not request the opening documents for the bank' account. The
licensee provided the checks and the signatory Information.. .. ,EW., PY. the
investigator. The CingoWiftilkiteltdiftiriiiiiiiteditittbOieWali riderriah Want
lieffilikhRt tyatat
..,.vi:::::‘..14:do,,AmNii..,..
Charge 14:

There is substantial evidence to show that on October 6, 2016, the licensee violated
rule 54.3 of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority In that it did not conform with all local
governmental regulations regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be
dancing on the licensed premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret
license. Rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.31provides:

Page 15 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran AJairam

The Authority expects all on-premises licensees, regardless of type of


premises, to conform with all applicable building codes, fire, health, safety
and governmental regulations.
Ad Code 27-232 defines cabaret as "... any room, place or space in which any musical
entertainment, singing, dancing or other similar amusement is permitted about an eating
and drinking establishment." A licensee is not permitted to operate a cabaret without
first obtaining a cabaret license from the Department of Consumer Affairs.
The Charge for permitting dancing without a cabaret license Is sustained. By way of
mitigation, taitgegmbadierrekPiretellbanILOSINSENOILIRLOSIMMEINEANt
charge 15:

itaisitublentitoldencedoz ..A.a. pategkeigbaleele, the licensee failed to


conform with ail representations set forth in the application. This charge is based on the
allegation that the licensee was operating as an adult entertainment establishment
contrary to the Establishment Questionnaire. The Authority has failed to prove that the
premises was operating as an adult entertainment establishment (see discussion in
Charge 2). The Charge for failure to conform to all representations in the application Is
not sustained.
Charge 16:

IMMifiarttglitiOnCejtoVhoyssew ,sober 6, 2016, the licensee engaged in


carte n`condlibt that was of such improper nature as to warrant revocation, cancellation,
or suspension of the license.
It is not contested that the licensee provided a security guard contract from a company
that is licensed as private investigators but is not a licensed security guard company.
The Authority alleges that this activity was fraudulent in that the licensee held out the
document out as a contract with a bona fide security company.
Rule 36.1(n) [9 NYCRR 53.1(n); of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority states In
pertinent part
Any license or permit issued pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law may be revoked, cancelled or suspended for the following causes ...
For improper conduct by the licensee or permitbee, ... whether such
conduct was on or off the licensed premises, and which conduct is of
such nature that if known to the authority, the authority, in its
discretion, could properly deny the issuance of a permit or license or
any renewal thereof because of the unsatisfactory character and/or
fitness of such person. (emphasis supplied)

Page 16 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s); 114682
Licensee: Mr. Imran AJairam

The Authority must show that the specific conduct alleged "is of such nature that if
known to the authority, the authority, in its discretion, could properly deny the issuance
of a permit or license or any renewal thereof because of the unsatisfactory character
and/or fitness of such person." As seen in case law regarding 9 NYCRR 53.1(n), "frjhe
improper conduct which serves as the basis of a license sanction under the regulation
will need to be of such a character and quality that it supports a finding of 'cause' under
ABCL §§ 17, 118." Empire Wine & Spirits LLC v. New York State Liquor Authority, 47
Misc. 3d 256, 998 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24400 (Alb. Ct. Sup. Ct., 2014).
This could include, but is not limited to, the failure to disclose a prior criminal conviction,
or the failure to disclose a financial entanglement tantamount to the availing of the
License. The Authority is granted a broad ability to determine who should have the
privilege of a license. See, generally, Belden v. State of New York Liquor Authority, 30
A.D.2d 1045, .294 N.Y.S.2d 849 (4th Dept., 1968)(Denying an appeal where the
Authority denied a license application for failure to disclose an adjudication as a
'youthful offender' because, "This explanation does not satisfy the requirements of an
honest and candid answer to the questions of the original application."); see also Wager
v. State Liquor Authority, 4 N.Y.2d 465, 151 N.E.2d 869, 176 N.Y.S.2d 311 (NY 1958)
(Denying an appeal when the applicant had a "close relationship between the
[applicant's] activities as a permittee, vending machine operator and automobile dealer
with retail liquor licensees, [which) did provide a reasonable basis for the considered
judgment of the Authority" to deny the license.")

Aft, (Mean 4/4101ta


• at
tsl! 09.1141ortiRIEWAWIROWNOrtract
viiiptOp y. fihe Charge for engaging in conduct of such
improper nature to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license is not
sustained.

CONCLUSION

Docket No. 801-2017/Case No. 115284

Based upon the hearing, testimony, and evidence before me, I find that

Charge 1: VehargeltfliOtAniet09041
Charge 2: TtitahargeAsnotvmtailft
Charge 3: The Charge is sustained.
Charge 4: TkeACIMPA:.., .
Page 17 of 18
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number(s): 114682
Licensee: Mr. imran A.lairam

Charge 6: The Chargeagegteit

Charge 6: The Charge is sustained.

Charge 7: The Charge is sustained.


Charge 8: The Charge agnebtratal i.

Charge 9:. The Charge is sustained.


Charge 10: The Charge is sustained.

Charge 11: The Charge is sustained.

Charge 12: The Charge is sustained.


Charge 13: The Char90090149ifted.
Charge 14: The Charge is sustained.

Charge 15: The

Charge 16: The Chargeiliiitititialiiidiat

Dated: Nbvember 27, 2017


Marilyn D iken
Administrative Law Judge

Page 18 of 18
EXHIBIT 8
:1'

NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY


Hearing Bureau
317 Lenox Avenue
New York, New York 10027
umemenimmmoviammalm•Me.s..........•

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE


&NMI Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Docket Number(s): 976-2017
Case Number(s): 118204
Licensee/Principal: Imran A. Jairam

Licensed Premises: KB Venture Group LLC


Love & Lust
225 47th Street
Brooklyn, NY. 11220
omommawaemea ba••••••moam...........•••••••••••••••••••••••••11•Irommon•010•1•••••=01•0 NIIIMIN•1101111..101110•011.0,10111.111111.110MINMIIIMINIMMIO••••••••••X

BEFORE: Craig Porges, Administrative Law Judge


Hearing Dates: October 31, 2017, December 11, 2017, December 14, 2017,
and February 1, 2018

Hearing Location: Hearing Bureau, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, NY 10027
Notice of Pleading: September 12, 2017 (second amended)
Attorney for Authority: Thomas Rizzuti, Esq.
Attorney for Licensee: Kerry Katsorhis, Esq.
Witness for Authority: Pollbe Officer Rashevskly
Police Officer Ruiz
Police Officer Tatis
Police Officer Fragoso
Police Officer Shea
Police Officer lonashko
Police Officer Steele
Witness for Licensee: Frank Carniglla

1.
11*

&Mal NuMber. 1273976, Kings OP 1273975


Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. lmran A. Jairam

Licensee Present: Yesi


Other Persons Present None
Authority's Exhibits: SLA Ex. 1: Second Amended Notice of Pleading (dated
September 12, 2017)
SLA Ex. 2: Summons #4429323752 (October 26, 2016)
SLA Ex. 3: Arrest Report (dated November 6, 2016)
SLA Ex. 4: Aided Report (dated December 20, 2016)
SLA Ex. 5: Complaint Report (dated February 26, 2017)
SLA Ex. 6: CSummons Report (dated February 19, 2017)
SLA Ex. 7: Arrest Report (dated December 2, 2016)
SLA Ex. 8; Police Action - Licensed/Unlicensed Premises
Report (dated March 24, 2017)
SLA Ex. 9: Police Action - Licensed/Unlicensed Premises
Report (dated March 14, 2017)
SLA Ex. 10: • Summons #4430623184 (dated March 3,
2017)
SLA Ex. 11: CSummons Report (dated March 4, 2017)
SLA Ex. 12: Aided Report (dated May 21, 2017)
SLA Ex. 13: Complaint Report (dated June 4, 2017)
SLA Ex. 14: Arrest Report (dated June 4, 2017)
SLA Ex. 15: Summons #4430817679 (dated November 6,
2016)
SLA Ex. 16: Aided Report Worksheet (dated March 26,
2017)
SLA Ex. 17: Summons #4434590855 (dated March 11,
2017) •
SEA Ex. 18: Opinion In State Liquor Authority Case No.
114682, Docket No. 1757-2017.
SLA Ex. 19: Third Amended Notice of Pleading (dated
February 16, 2018)
Licensee's Exhibits: Lic Ex. A: Police Action - Licensed/Unlicensed Premises
Report (dated March 24, 2017)
Lic Ex. B: Place of Assembly/Certificate of Operation
(dated June 20, 2016)
Lic Ex. C: Photo of entrance to licensed premises taken
from a drone.
Lk Ex. D: Place of Assembly/Certificate of Operation
(dated January 26, 2017)

1The Licensee was present for most, though not all, of the hearings In this matter; (See various
attendance sheets).
Page 2 of 20
aerial *Aber: 1273975, kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 978.2017
Licensee; Mr. lmran A. Jairam

Hearing Recorded: Digitally


CHARGES
1. That on November 6, 2016, the licensee suffered or permitted the licensed premises
to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 108 of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Law.

2. That on December 17, 2018, the licensee suffered or permitted the licensed
premises to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

3. That on February 19, 2017, in violation of subdivision 3 of section 106 of the


Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the licensee sold, delivered or gave away, or
permitted liquor and/or wine to be sold, delivered or given away, for consumption off
the premises.

4. That on February 25, 2017, the licensee suffered or perMitted the licensed premises
to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 108 of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Law.

5. That on March 3, 2017, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority
[9 NYCRR 48.31In that the licensee did not conform with local governmental
regulations regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be dancing on the
licensed premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret license; all cause
to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with
rule 38.1(f) of the Rules of the Authority. (9 NYCRR 53.1(0).

6. That on March 11, 2017, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules of the Authority
[9 NYCRR 48.31in that the licensee did not conform with local governmental
regulations regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be dancing on the
licensed premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret license; all cause
to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with
rule 36.1(f) of the Rules of the Authority. [9 NYCRR 53.1(1)1.

7. That on or before December 11, 2017, the occurrence of noise, disturbance,


misconduct or disorder In the licensed premises, in front of or adjacent to the
licensed premises, or in the parking lot of the licensed premises has resulted in the
licensed premises becoming a focal point for police attention; all cause for
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(q)
of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(q)].

8. That on or before December 11, 2017, the licensee, through the actions of its
principal and its agents and employees, has violated rule 542 of the Rules of the
Page 3 of 20
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number; 978-2017
Licensee: Mr. Wren A. Jairem
State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 48.21in that the licensee has failed to exercise
adequate supervision over the conduct of the licensed business; all cause for
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(f)
of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 63.1(f)].

9. That on or before December 11, 2017, in violation of subdivisions 1and 3 of section


118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law there has existed a sustained and
continuing pattern of noise, disturbance, misconduct or disorder on or about the
licensed premises, related to the operation of the premises or the conduct of its
patrons, which adversely affects the health, welfare, or safety of the inhabitants of
the area in which The licensed premises are located.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter was initiated on September 12, 2017 when the Authority issued the Second
Amended Notice of Pleading to the Licensee. Hearings were held in this matter on
October 31, 2017, December 11, 2017, December 14, 2017, and February 1, 2018. The
Notice of Pleading was amended orally, at the hearing and over the Licensee's
objection, a third time on December 12, 20172. After the hearing was over the Ucensee
and the Authority each submitted written summations. Police Officers Rashevsidy, Ruiz
and Tatis testified as witnesses in this matter on October 31, 2017. Police Officer
Fragoso and Sergeant Shea testified on December 11, 2017. Police Officers lonashko
and Steele testified on December 14, 2017. Finally, Mr. Camiglia testified on February
1, 2018. Both the Licensee and the Authority were given the opportunity to submit
summations at the end of the hearing. The Licensee submitted its summation via email
on February 16, 2018 and the Authority submitted a short email as its summation on
that same day.
STANDAR!) OF REVIEW
Under the law of the State of New York, in an administrative proceeding as we have here,
I am required by law to find whether there is "substantial evidence" to sustain each and
every charge brought against the Licensee by the New York State liquor Authority (the
"Authority".
"Substantial evidence is 'less than a preponderance of evidence' and requires only that
there be enough 'relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support
a conclusion or ultimate fact"' In m 25-24 Cafe Concerto Ltd. v. New York State Liquor
Authority, 65 A.D.3d 260, 265 (1st Dept. 2009)(citing 300 Gramatan Ave, Assoc, v. State
DM of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-81 (1978)). See SCR Lake Lounge, Inc. v.
State Liquor Authority, 87 N.Y.2d 206 (1995). "The question ... is whether a conclusion
or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonablyrprobatively and logically." City of Utica

2 SLA Ex. 19 memorializes this in writing.

Page 4 of 20
;
Wei Number 1273975, Kings OP 1273976
Case Number 118204
Docket Number 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. tmmn A Jakarn

Boort! of Water Supply v. New York State Health Department, 96 A.D.2d 710, 465
N.Y.S.2d 365, 366 (1983) (citations omitted).

Hearsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination and, if sufficiently


probative, it alone may constitute substantial evidence. Cafe La China Corp. v. State
Liquor Authority, 43 A.D.3d 280 (1st Dept. 2007) (citations omitted). Unoontroverted
hearsay can form the entire basis for an administrative determination. Gray v. Adduol, 73
N.Y.2d 741 (1988) (citations omitted).
BASED UPON the testimony and record in this case, is as the Administrative Law Judge,
hereby make the following findings of fact, law, and opinion;

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Authority called Officer Rashevskiy as a witness.3 Officer Rashevskiy has worked in
the 72151Precinctd for two and a half years. In the early morning of November 26, 2017,
Officer Rashevskiy was on a directed patrol at the location of Club Lust (the "licensed
premises"), in addition to another police cruiser that was on directed patrol at the same
location.5 Officer Rashevskiy was at that particular location because of an "event" that
was being held at the licensed premises at that time. On the 26th, Officer Rashevskiy
issued a disorderly conduct summons to a woman who had been in the licensed premises
and who was involved in a verbal dispute with another person, which lasted less than
one minute,* and then entered into a fight with that same person, in front of the licensed
premises,
Officer Ruiz was the next person to testify. Officer Ruiz has worked in the 72nd Precinct
for one and a half years. Officer Ruiz was working in the early morning of November 6,
2016 as "patrol," when he received a call, at approximately 2:15am, from another police
officer (Officer Rodriguez), who was at the licensed premises, requesting assistance from
additional units. Officer Ruiz responded to the call and proceeded to the licensed
premises. Once at the licensed premises (around 2:20am), Officer Ruiz observed fifty to
sixty people milling about in front of the licensed premises, although no one was fighting.
Officer Rulz was informed that an Individual had been involved in a fight at the licensed
premises. Officer Ruiz and Officer Rodriguez eventually arrested the individual for false
impersonation and disorderly conduct.
Officer Rashevakly testified to an incident that occurred in November of 2016. The Licensee
objected to this testimony on the basis that it was too far from the June 2017 date of Charges 7,
8, and 9 to be relevant and that the Licensee did not have adequate warning to prepare its case.
The objection was overruled.
The licensed premises Is located within the 72" Precinct.
5 It was noted by Officer Rashevekly that other bars are in the same area as Club Lust, although
they are significantly smaller. The nearest residential area Is about 1000 feet from the licensed
remises.
• At the time of this incident, Officer Rashevekly observed security guards dispersing the crowd.

Page 5 of 20
• • 4

Serial NUmber: 1273976, Kings OP 1273975


Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 978.2017
Licensee: Mr. lmran A. Jekam
Officer Ruiz also was at the licensed premises on the morning of December 17, 2016
(around 3:05am) aftei another request for additional units at the location was made
Officer Ruiz observed fifty to sixty people outside the licensed premises at that time, and
he observed several individuals fighting. He also observed one individual on the ground
who was having trouble breathing — a result of being pepper sprayed by a security guard
at Club Lusts Officer Ruiz questioned five security guards at the licensed premises and
they told him that the individual had started a fight inside the licensed premises and was
escorted out of the licensed premises. None of the guards said that they had pepper
sprayed the individual, and none of them admitted to possessing pepper spray.
Officer Ruiz has previously observed security at the licensed premises performing "pat
downs" and using a "metal detector wand" on incoming patrons.
Officer Tatis testified next. Officer Tatis has worked in the 72nd Precinct for two years as
a "patrol" officer. On March 5, 2017, a female individual walked into the precinct and
stated that she had been assaulted at the licensed premises on February 25, 2017. The
woman, Tiffany Bolden, spoke to Officer Tatis and told him that she was a security guard
employed at the licensed premises on February 25, 2017 when a fight occurred between
two patrons inside the club. Ms. Bolden attempted to break up the fight, at which time she
was "grabbed" and "forcefully pushed to the ground" by another employee at the licensed
premises.1° Ms. Bolden did not recall how the fight had begun. Officer Tatis is not aware
of anyone at the licensed premises calling for police assistance on that date, although he
did not deny that such calls could have occurred without him knowing about them.
Officer Fragoso then testified. Officer Fragoso has worked within the 72nd Precinct for the
last year. On February 19, 2017, Officer Fragoso was patrolling the area outside the
licensed premises when he observed a gentleman hiding a bottle of liquor, first under an
automobile, and then under his jacket Officer Fragoso (and a lieutenant who was
accompanying him11) confronted the gentleman and asked him where he had obtained
the bottle of liquor. The individual informed Officer Fragoso that he had purchased the
bottle inside the licensed premises and had gotten "a deal on it." Officer Fragoso told the
individual that It was Illegal to take a bottle of alcohol out of the licensed premises. The
individual responded that he had paid for it and was going to finish it. Officer Fragoso
issued the individual a summons (see SLA Ex. 6).

7 Officer Ruiz could not recall who made the request.


° According to both the individual and a female who was with the individual.
° Officer Tatis described the individual as Mr. *Rich," as told to him by Ms. Bolden. Mr.
Camigila, a witness who testified at a hearing on this matter, and who is employed at the
licensed premises, testified that this individual is Rich Mendez, however, Mr. Camiglia had not
been aware of the "accusation" against Mr. Mendez discussed here.
" Ms. Bolden went to a hospital to seek medical treatment for Injuries that resulted from this
event
" Lieutenant "Mayer' according to Officer Fragoso.

Pages of 20
Serial NUmber: 1273976. Kings OP 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imran A. Jairam
According to Officer Fragoso, every night that the licensed premises is open, a directed
patrol is assigned to the licensed premises' location.

Officer Shea testified next. Officer Shea (hereinafter "Sergeant Shea') has been
employed as a police officer within the 72nd Precinct for a little over a year. Sergeant
Shea, after reviewing documentary evidence in the possession of the NYPD, credibly
testified that between October of 2016 and December of 2017, members of the NYPD
had gone to the licensed premises for three intoxication incidents12, four larcenies13, two
open container incidents 6, one marijuana arrest, two disorderly conduct summonses,
one public urination summons, two unlicensed cabaret summonses, eight driving under
the influence summonses (the perpetrators of which were stopped either on the block of
the licensed premises or within one block of the licensed promisees), and six assaults.15
17 Sergeant Shea noted that when members of the NYPD are conducting a directed patrol
at the licensed premises that necessarily means that they cannot respond to any other
event in the precinct. Sergeant Shea testified that there is a directed patrolat the licensed
premises every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night into the following morning. When
the licensed premises has an event or performer, which occurs "at least" once a week, a
directed patrol, and an additional police car in the nearby area, will be assigned to the
licensed premises. Sergeant Shea credibly testified that the 720 Precinct receives more
calls regarding the licensed premises than any other licensed premises within the
precinct. Additionally, according to Sergeant Shea, the members of the 72nd Precinct do
directed patrols at the licensed premises because "of the amount of summons and arrests
we have there."
Officer lonashko testified next. Officer lonashko has worked within the 72nd Precinct for
two years. Officer lonashko testified that he has done directed patrols at the licensed
premises and has seen "drunk people coming out, starting fights, [and] passing out."
Officer lonashko was at the licensed premises when he observed an individual leave the
licensed premises and then urinate on a public sidewalk. Security at the licensed
premises did not interact with the individual In any way after the individual had left the
licensed premises.

12 One of the incidents was Inside the licensed premises, the others were outside the licensed
premises.
"Three grand larcenies inside the licensed premises, and one petty larceny inside the licensed
premises. The larcenies consisted of $10,000 stolen from the licensed premises Itself (on
October 29, 2017), one stolen cell phone (on April 9, 2017), one case of pick pocketing (on June
16, 2017), and one case of a purse being stolen (on September 16, 2017).
14 One on February 19, 2017 and one on July 8, 2017.
15 sergeant Shea noted that several such individuals had stated that they were leaving the
licensed premises when they were stopped by the police.
" The assaults occurred on February 26, 2017, June 4, 2017, July 3, 2017, August 20, 2017,
October 28, 2017 and Nov. 19, 2017.
12 Officer Shea noted that there might be some overlap between the dates of each Incident that
he cited.

Page 7 of 20
• • •

Serial Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1279975


Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. imran A. Jairam

On May 21, 2017, Officer lonashko observed an individual leave the licensed premises
with a bottle of Henhessy hidden under his jacket and then fail asleep on the ground next
to the licensed premises.18 Again, security at the licensed premises did not interact with
the individual in any way after he left the licensed premises. Officer lonashko has seen
"other" Individuals leave the licensed premises with bottles of alcohol, although he did not
specify when these events occurred.
Officer lonashko was also at the licensed premises on June 4, 2017 when a fight broke
out between an employee dancer and a bartender inside the licensed premises. The
bartender was arrested as a result of this incident (see SLA 13 and 14). Officer lonashko
stated that he has also made *other arrests* at the licensed premises, although he did not
specify what those arrests were for.
Officer lonashko stated that he participated in "many" directed patrols at the licensed
premises between March 4, 2017 and May 21, 2017.
Officer lonashko testified that security has always been cooperative with him, and has
attempted to give him assistance, at times.
Officer Steele then testified." Officer Steele has been with the 72nd Precinct for one and
a half years. She stated that whenever the licensed premises is open a directed patrol is
in effect at the licensed premises. On November 6, 2016, Officer Steele was taking part
In a directed patrol at the licensed premises when she observed a fight occur between
two Individuals, who she had observed leave from the licensed premises, around 3:50am.
On March 25, 2017, Officer Steele was taking part in a directed patrol at the licensed
premiseso when she observed an intoxicated female leave the licensed premises who
could "hardly walk" and was being escorted by friends. This individual "reeked° of alcohol
and eventually had to be taken to the hospital (see SLA Ex. 16). Security at the licensed
premises did not engage with the individual or in the Incident in any way. Officer Steele
could recall only one Incident In the past year and a half when security at the licensed
premises called the 72nd Precinct for assistance.
In addition to the directed patrols, the 72nd Precinct also has officers drive by the entrance
of the club every fifteen minutes when it is operating, according to Officer Steele. In her
words; "Security helps us when the altercations are large or dangerous, otherwise they
do their own thing, and we are fine with that."
Officer Ciappa testified next. Officer Ciappa is also employed by the 72nd Precinct, and
has been so for one and a half years. On March 11, 2017, he was directed by a lieutenant

II officer lonashko called an ambulance to attend to the individual.


" Officer Steele was previously married, and at one time she used the name 'Manny.°
20 According to Officer Steele, such patrols last for two hours, usually, from 3:00am to 5:00am.

Page 8 of 20
Serial NtImber: 1273975, Kings OP 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
License: Mr. lmran A Jairam
to do a "business inspection" of the licensed premises. During this inspection, he
observed "at leash five employees (Le., strippers) dancing on a stage. Officer Ciappa
spoke to a manager at the licensed premises and requested a cabaret license. He was
given one, however it was expired. Officer Ciappa Issued the manager a CSummons as
a result (see SLA Ex. 17).21
Frank Camiglia was the next person to testify. Mr. Camiglia is employed at the licensed
premises as a supovisor, and has been for over a year. According to Mr. Camiglia, the
licensed premises has "always" used Entourage Security as its full-time security
company, and every day that the licensed premises is open there are ten to twelve
security guards present, minimums When a patron attempts to enter the licensed
premises they are first greeted by a security officer who asks for state Issued
identification, which is then scanned by a handheld computer system for authenticity. The
patron then goes through a metal detector, a pat down, and a metal detector *wending."
According to Mr. Camiglia "none° of the security guards carry weapons or pepper spray.24

Mr. Camigila testified that patrons are not allowed to leave the licensed premises with
alcohol, and if it is seen, "we stop it."211 Mr. Camiglia also testified that the licensed
premises, and its employees, "have never had to call the police for assistance."28 When
police are present, however, the security guards present are "instructed to work with
police, to the utmost of their ability."
Mr. Camiglia testified that the licensed premises (and its staff) have contact with the 72nd
Precinct at the beginning of each night, during the night, and when the club is closing
(usually at 3:46am). Mr. Camiglia specifically stated that the contact with the 720 Precinct
is "a lot."

21 At the hearing. the Licensee presented a Public Assembly Permit which allows the licensed
premises to operate as a cabaret (see Lk. Ex. B). Officer Ciappa was not shown this document
on the night of March 11, 2017.
22 Mr. Camiglia later testified that it was either Entourage Security or Elite Security, he wasn't
sure which because In November of 2016 the licensed premises switched security companies
and Mr. Camiglia could not recall which company was let go and which company was hired.
23 There are also times when more security guards are present, according to Mr. Camiglia,
including more than 25 on particular evenings..
24 This testimony from Mr. Camiglia was not credible in light of the testimony Officer Ruiz gave
about his experiences at the licensed premises.
26 While I do not doubt the authenticity of Mr. Camiglia's testimony in this regard, per se, it is
hard to credit it, or to give it too little credit, in light of the testimony of both Officer Fragoso and
Officer lonashko, who each testified that they had observed an individual leave the licensed
premises with a bottle of alcohol, on different occasions.
24 In light of the prior testified to incidents and arrests at the licensed premises, the effectiveness
of this strategy is questionable at best.

Page 9 of 20
Serial Number 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 118204
Docket•Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. lmran A Jairam

Mr. Camiglia stated that "security makes it a priority to make sure that customers leave
the premises safely." Mr. Carniglia also testified that there are protocols in place to assist
patrons who appear to be unable to function properly because they are inebriated."
Mr. Camiglia admitted that the licensed premises is the largest venue in the area. He
also testified that the licensed premises Is the only business operating on the block at
the time that It Is open and that there are no nearby residential places.

OPINION
Charge 1;
I find that this charge should not be sustained.
The Authority alleges that on November 6, 2016, the licensee suffered or permitted the
licensed premises to become disorderly in violation of subdMsion 6 of section 106 of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, Subdivision 6 of section 106 provides, in relevant
part "No person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages shall . . suffer or permit such
premises to become disorderly."
To sustain a charge of Disorderly Premises, "it must be shown that the licensee or
manager knew or should have known of the condition and tolerated its existence. A
brief, unexpected incident Is not enough to establish a violation unless managerrient
was instrumental in creating the incident, A licensee is not responsible for every act of
his non-managerial employees nor is he responsible for every act of his customers."
See People v. Cantor, 13 Misc.3d 1243(A) (Supreme Court, N.Y. County 2006) (offing
Matter ofMalRestaurant Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 74 A.D.2d 750 (let
Dept 1980); Matter ofPlayboy Club ofNew York v. State Liquor Authority ofState of
New York 23 N.Y.2d 544 (1989): Awrloh Restaurant v. New York State Liquor
Authority, 60 N.Y.2d 845 (1983)). Unexpected events of brief duration which could not
have been prevented through reasonable supervision or could not have been
reasonably anticipated cannot serve as the basis for a disorderly premises charge. See
People v. Serro, 179 Misc2d 54 (1998) (offing Matter ofMoonwalkers Rest. Corp. v.
New York State Liquor Authority, 250 A.D.2d 428 (1st Dept 1998)). Evidence of
Inadequate security measures at the premises, however, can be the basis of a violation
of subdivision 8 of section 106. Warehouse Enf., Inv. v. N.Y. State Lig, Auth., 289
A.D.2d 278, 279 (110 Dept. 2000).
Officer Ruiz testified that in the early morning of November 6, 2018 he received a call
from another police officer who was at the licensed premises, requesting assistance from
additional units. Once at the licensed premises, Officer Ruiz observed fifty to sixty people
milling about in front of the licensed premises, although no one was fighting. Officer Ruiz
was informed that an individual had been involved in a fight at the licensed premises.
Officer Ruiz and Officer Rodriguez eventually arrested the individual for false
° According to Mr. Carniglia, staff at the licensed premises give such Individuals water, and stay
with them until they either feel better or their transportation arrives.
Page 10 of 20
Serial Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number 978-2017
Licensee: Mr. lmran A, Jalram I

impersonation and.dlsorcierly conduct. Officer Steele testified that she took part in a
directed patrol at the licensed premises on the same date, when she observed a fight
occur between two individuals, who she observed leave from the licensed premises,
around 3:50am.
The Authority has failed to show that the Licensee "suffered or permitted" the premises
to become disorderly. As noted above, unexpected events of brief duration which could
not have been prevented through reasonable supervision or could not have been
reasonably anticipated cannot serve as the basis for a disorderly premises charge.
Similarly, the Authority, if it seeks to assign responsibility for suffering or permitting the
premises becoming disorderly, must establish that the premises actually was disorderly,
and that the disorder was not of a brief duration and could have been prevented through
reasonable supervision. No such circumstances were established at the hearing.
Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.

Charge 2:
I find that this charge should not be sustained. '
The Authority alleges that on December 17, 2016, the licensee suffered or permitted the
licensed premises to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. As noted above, Subdivision 6 of section 106
provides, in relevant part: "No person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages shall .
suffer or permit such premises to become disorderly."

Officer Ruiz testified that on the morning of December 17, 2016 (around 3:05am) after a
request for additional units at the location was made he observed fifty to sixty people
outside the licensed premises fighting. He also observed one individual on the ground
who was having trouble breathing — a result, allegedly, of being pepper sprayed by a
security guard at the licensed premises. Officer Ruiz questioned five security guards at
the licensed premises and they told him that the individual had started a fight inside the
licensed premises and was escorted out of the licensed premises. None of the guards
said that they had pepper sprayed the individual, and none of them admitted to
possessing pepper spray.
As noted above, unexpected events of brief duration which could not have been
prevented through reasonable supervision or could not have been reasonably anticipated
cannot serve as the basis for a disorderly premises charge. Similarly, the Authority, if it
seeks to assign responsibility for suffering or permitting the premises becoming
disorderly, must establish that the premises was disorderly, and that the disorder was not
of a brief duration and could have been prevented through reasonable supervision. No
such circumstances were established at the hearing.

Page 11of 20
Serial Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number. 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. imren A. Jairam

Officer Rules testimony does not establish that the Licensee "suffered or permitted" the
incident that took place outside of the licensed premises to take place, or could possibly
have anticipated and prevented the incident. The burden to prove the existence of the
violation alleged is on the Authority. i find that they have not met that burden In this
instance.

Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.


Charge 3:
I find that this charge should not be sustained.

The Authority► alleges that on February 19, 2017, in violation of subdivision 3 of section
106 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the licensee sold, delivered or gave away,
or permitted liquor and/or wine to be sold, delivered or given away, for consumption off
the premises. Subdivision 3 of section 106 provides, in relevant part uNo retail licensee
for on-premises consumption shall sell, deliver or give away, or cause or permit or
procure to be sold, delivered or given away any liquors and/or wines for consumption off
the premises where sold." •
The Authority provided testimony that, on at least two occasions, individuals were seen
by police officers with bottles of a liquor that they had received inside the licensed
premises. In both cases, however, the individual who was seen with the bottle of liquor
was actively concealing the bottle of liquor. The.Authority failed to establish that the
Licensee caused or permitted any alcohol to be given to a patron for the purpose of it
being consumed outside of the licensed premises.

Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.

ChargRA:

I find that this charge should not be sustained.

The Authority alleges that on February 26, 2017, the Licensee suffered or permitted the
licensed premises to become disorderly in violation of subdivision 6 of section 106 of
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. As noted above, Subdivision a of section 106
provides, in relevant part: "No person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages shall .
suffer or permit such premises to become disorderly."
Officer Tatis testified that on March 6, 2017, a female individual walked into the precinct
and stated that she had been assaulted at the licensed premises on February 25, 2017.
The woman, Tiffany Bolden, spoke to Officer Tate and told him that she was a security
guard employed at the licensed premises on February 26, 2017 when a fight occurred

Page 12 of 20
serial Number: 1273976 Kings OP 1273976
Case Number 118204
Docket Number: 970-2017
Licensee: W. Imran A. Jafram

between two patrons inside the club. Ms. Bolden attempted to break up the fight, at
which time she was "grabbed" and "forcefully pushed to the ground" by another
employee at the licensed premises. Ms. Bolden did not recall how the fight had begun.
Officer Tatis was not aware of anyone at the licensed premises calling for police
assistance on that date, although he did not deny that such calls could have occurred
without him knowing about them.
As noted above, a finding that a licensee "suffered or permitted" the premises to
become disorderly requires the Authority to establish actual knowledge or a foreseeable
pattern of conduct and tolerance of its existence. In addition, m[a]n occasional argument
between patrons of a large establishment . . is neither unusual nor unexpected."
Peanutbutter Jam, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 396 N.Y.S.2d 104,105 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1877).

While testimony at the hearing made it appear likely that the Licensee allowed the
licensed premises to become overcrowded on numerous occasions, and while it is also
true that physical disputes have occurred at the licensed premises numerous times in
the past, I do not find that a "foreseeable pattern of conduct and tolerance" of disorder
existed at the licensed premises. No evidence was presented of such a pattern of
conduct or tolerance other than, what appears to be, several isolated incidents.

Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.

Charlie 5:

I find that this charge should be sustained.


The Authority alleges that on March 3, 2017, the Licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules
of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.3] in that the Licensee did not conform with local
governmental regulations regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be
dancing on the licensed premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret license;
all cause to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance
with rule 36.1(f) of the Rules of the Authority. [9 NYCRR 63.1(f)].
The Authority submitted as an exhibit SLA 10 which is a photo of a summons Issued to
the Licensee's principal on March 3, 2017 for a violation of NYC Administrative Code 20-
360. The "Title of Offense" section of that summons reads: "Unlicensed Cabaret."
According to the "Factual Allegations" of that summons, the Licensee did not have a valid
cabaret license as of March 3, 2017, as its cabaret license expired on September 30,
2018. The Authority also submitted a second summons, issued by Officer Ciappa to Frank
Camiglla on March 11, 2017, which alleges a violation of the same code section, and
which provides that "5 dancers [were] on stage as well as multiple dancers around bar.
Cabaret license expired [September 30, 2018]" (see SLA Ex. 17).
Page 13 of 20
• 1

Sedal Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1273976


Case Number: 118204
Docket Number 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imren A Jairam

NYC Administrative Code 20-380(a) and (b) provide:


a. It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct, maintain or operate, or engage in the
business of conducting, maintaining or operating; a public dance hail, cabaret or
catering establishment unless the premises wherein the same is conducted, maintained
or operated are licensed in the manner prescribed herein.

b. A membership corporation, club, association or society which permits musical


entertainment, singing, dancing or other form of amusement in premises wherein food
or drink is directly or indirectly sold to its members, or their guests, or to the public, shall
be deemed to be conducting a cabaret hereunder.
Officer Ciappa.credibly testified that on March 11, 2017, he personally observed at least
five employees dancing on a stage and he requested a cabaret license from a manager
at the licensed premises, only to be given an expired cabaret license.

The Licensee presented a Public Assembly Permit which allows the licensed premises
to operate as a cabaret (see Lio. Ex. B). It was admitted at the hearing that Officer
Ciappa was not shown this document on the night of March 11, 2017. Additionally, the
Licensee admitted that as of March 11, 2017, their cabaret license was. in fact, expired.
Further, in the Licensee's summation, the Licensee admitted that their cabaret license
was expired as of both March 3 and March 11.28
The Licensee also did not controvert that dancing was present at the licensed premises
on both March 3 and March 11, 2017.
Based on a totality of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, I find that
the Authority has established by substantial evidence That the licensed premises was
operating as a cabaret on March 3, 2017 without a valid cabaret license.
Accordingly, I find that this charge should be sustained.

Chime 8:
I find that this charge should be sustained.
The Authority alleges that on March 11, 2017, the licensee violated rule 54.3 of the Rules
of the Authority [9 NYCRR 48.3] in that the licensee did not conform with local
governmental regulations regarding cabaret activity since persons were found to be

a The Licensee also stated In Its summation that the "New York City Council repealed the
requirement in the NYC Administrative Code for cabarets to obtain a license on November 27th,
2017, under law number 2017/214.' The Licensee did not, however, present any evidence that
this repeal is to be applied retroactively, suchthat It would cover the dates at issue in this
matter, nor Is the court aware of any such interpretation.
Page 14 of 20
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings Op 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 978-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imam A. Jairam
dancing on the licensed premises without it being in possession of a valid cabaret license;
all cause to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license In accordance
with rule 36.1(f) of the Rules of the Authority. [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].

As noted Immediately above, the Authority submitted as an exhibit SLA 10 which Is a


photo of a summons Issued to the Licensee's principal on March 3, 2017 for a violation
of NYC Administrative Code 20-360. The "Title of Offense" section of that summons
reads: "Unlicensed Cabaret." According to the "Factual Allegations" of that summons, the
Licensee did not have a valid cabaret license as of March 3, 2017, as its cabaret license
expired on September 30, 2016. The Authority also submitted a second summons, issued
by Officer Ciappa to Frank Camiglia on March 11, 2017, which alleges a violation of the
same code section, and which provides that "5 dancers [were] on stage as well as
multiple dancers around bar. Cabaret license expired [September 30, 2016] (see SLA Ex.
17).
NYC Administrative Code 20-360(a) and (b) provide:
a. It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct, maintain or operate, or engage in
the business of conducting, maintaining or operating, a public dance hall, cabaret or
catering establishment unless the premises wherein the same is conducted, maintained
or operated are licensed in the manner prescribed herein.
b. A membership corporation, club, association or society which permits musical
entertainment, singing, dancing or other form of amusement in premises wherein food
or drink Is directly or indirectly sold to its members, or their guests, or to the public, shall
be deemed to be conducting a cabaret hereunder.
Officer Ciappa credibly testified that on March 11, 2017, he personally observed at least
five employees dancing on a stage and he requested a cabaret license from a manager
at the premises, only to be given an expired license.
The Licensee presented a Public Assembly Permit which allows the licensed premises
to operate as a cabaret (see Lie. Ex. B). It was admitted at the hearing that Officer
Ciappa was not shown this document on the night of March 11, 2017. Additionally, the
Licensee admitted that as of March 11, 2017, their cabaret license was, in fact, expired.
In the Licensee's summation, the Licensee admitted that their cabaret license was
expired as of both March 3 and March 11.20

The Licensee also stated in its summation that the "New York City Council repealed the
requirement in the NYC Administrative Code for cabarets to obtain a license on November 271h,
2017, under law number 20171214." The Licensee did not, however, present any evidence that
this repeal is to be applied retroactively, such that it would cover the dates at issue In this
matter, nor Is the court aware of any such interpretation.
Page 15 of 20
Serial NOmber: 1273976, Ow OP 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 978-2017
licensee: Mr. Imran A. Jairam

The Licensee also did not controvert that dancing was present at the licensed premises
on both March 3 and March 11, 2017, and that no valid, active, unexpired cabaret
license was possessed by the licensed premises on those dates.
Based on a totality of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, I find that
the Authority has established by substantial evidence that the licensed premises was
operating as a cabaret on March 3, 2017 without a valid cabaret license.
Accordingly, I find that this charge should be sustained.
Chine 7:
I find that this charge should be sustained.

The Authority alleges that on or before December 12, 2017, the occurrence of noise,
disturbance, misconduct or disorder in the licensed premises, in front of or adjacent to
the licensed premises, or in the parking lot of the licensed premises has resulted in the
licensed premises becoming a focal point for police attention; all cause for revocation,
cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(q) of the Rules of.
the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(q)j.

Rule 36.1(q) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(q)1 the Authority
may revoke, cancer or suspend a license:
When any noise, disturbance, misconduct, disorder, act or activity occurs in
the licensed premises, or In the area in front of or adjacent to the licensed
premises, or in any parking lot provided by the licensee for use by licensee's
patrons, which, in the judgment of the authority, adversely affects or tends
to affect the protection, health, welfare, safety or repose of the Inhabitants
of the area in which the licensed premises are located, or results in the
licensed premises becoming a focal point for police attention or is offensive
to public decency.

An establishment does not become a "focal point" because the police simply make
referrals to the Authority; an establishment becomes a "focal point" because of the
number of times Police and Police resources are used because of activity on or about the
Licensee's premises. It is the continual, long-term, constant engagement of the Licensee
with the Police, due to noise, disturbance, misconduct, disorder, act or activity and the
consequent drain on police resources that has provided the Authority with the power to
determine, in the Authority's judgment, that the Licensee has become a "focal point for
police attention" as is contemplated within the scope 9 NYCRR 53.1(q). See MJS Sports
Bar & Grill, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 129 A.D.3d 1368, 12 N.Y.S.3d 343,
2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05247 (3TMr Dept. 2015); See also La Trieste Restaurant & Cabaret,

Page 16 of 20
Serial Weber: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 9704017
Licensee: Mr. Imran A. &dram

Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 249 A.D.2d 168, 671, N.Y.S.2d 250 (1" Dep't,
1998).

At the hearing, copious evidence of how the licensed premises had become a focal point
for police attention "on or before December 12, 2017" was presented. This included
testimony from seven different police officers regarding illegal and disruptive activities
occurring at the licensed premises. Officer Fragoso testified that every night that the
licensed premises is open, a directed patrol is assigned to the licensed premises' location.
Sergeant Shea testified that between October of 2016 and December of 2017, members
of the NYPD had gone to the licensed premises for three intoxication incidents, four
larcenies, two open container incidents, one marguana arrest two disorderly conduct
summonses, one public urination summons, two unlicensed cabaret summonses, eight
driving under the Influence summonses, and six assaults. Sergeant Shea also noted that
when members of the NYPD are conducting a directed patrol at the licensed premises
that necessarily means that they cannot respond to any other events. Sergeant Shea
testified that there is a directed patrol at the licensed premises every Thursday, Friday,
and Saturday night into the following morning. Sergeant Shea also credibly testified that
the 72nd Precinct receives more calls regarding the licensed premises than any other
licensed premises within the precinct. Officer Steele testified that whenever the licensed
premises is open, a directed patrol is in effect at the licensed premises. Officer Steele
also testified that in addition to directed patrols, the 72nd Precinct has officers drive by the
entrance of the club every fifteen minutes when it is operating.
Testimony at the hearing painted a picture of an establishment that is rife with
disturbances, illegal activities, and fights. It is clear to me that the Licensee has become
a "focal point for police attention" as is contemplated within the scope 9 NYCRR 531(q).
See MIS Sports Bar & GrIII, Inc. v. New York State liquor Authority, 129 A.D.3d 1368,
12 N.Y.S.3d 343, 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05247 (3"t Dept.. 2016).
Accordingly, I find that this charge should be sustained.
Charge 11:
I find that this charge should be sustained.
The Authority alleges that on or before December 12, 2017, the Licensee, through the
actions of its principal and its agents and employees, has violated rule 54.2 of the Rules
of the State Liquor Authority [9 NYCRR 48.2] in that the Licensee has failed to exercise
adequate supervision over the conduct of the licensed business; all cause for
revocation, cancellation or suspension of the license in accordance with rule 36.1(f) of
the Rules of the State Uquor Authority [9 NYCRR 53.1(f)].

Page 17 of 20
Serial Number: 1273076, Kings OP 1273976
Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imran A. Jairam

Rule 54.2 [9 NYCRR 48.2] of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority provides:
The proper conduct of on-premises licensed establishments is essential to
the public interest. Failure of a licensee to exercise adequate supervision
over the conduct of such an establishment poses a substantial risk not
only to the objectives of alcoholic beverage control but imperils the health,
welfare and safety of the people of this State. It shall be the obligation of
each person licensed pursuant to this Part to insure that a high degree of
supervision is exercised over the conduct of the licensed establishment at
all times in order to safeguard against abuses of the license privilege and
violations of law. Each such licensee will be held strictly accountable for all
violations that occur in the licensed premises and are committed by or
suffered and permitted by any manager, agent or employee of such
licensee. Persons licensed hereunder shall also have a particular
responsibility to conform with those provisions of section 260.20 of the
Penal Law and sections 398-c and 399-d of the General Business Law,
which relate to the admission of minors to premises wherein alcoholic
beverages are sold.
Case law states that Rule 64.2 requires that a Licensee "exercise adequate supervision
over the conduct of the licensed bustriess." Ja Rooks Inc. v. New York State Liquor
Authority, 43 A.D.3d 663, 841 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1st Dept., 2007). This Rule Is "expressly
limited to 'violations that occur in the licensed premises.'" Ja Rocks Inc. (citing to 9
NYCRR 48.2). See also Platinum Pleasures v. New York State Liquor Authority, 122
A.D.3d 411, 996 N.Y.S.2d 23 (1st Dept, 2014) (Where a showing of conduct occurring on
the "public sidewalk outside the licensed premises" constituted a "prima fade showing of
a meritorious defense" to the charge). Furthermore, it must be shown that the Licensee's
"management was aware, or should have been aware," of the unbecoming conduct. Go
West Entertainment, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Autho►ity, 64 A.D.3d 609, 863
N.Y.S.2d 670 (1st Dept., 2008). A violation of the Rule is clearly shown when a Licensee's
"apparent lack of regard for its responsibilities under the license is made even more
manifest by the fact that [they have] been cited on numerous prior occasions for similar
violations, yet the complained of conduct of its premises continued almost unabated."
MK v, New York State Liquor Authority, 61 A.D.3d 1260, 877 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2009
N.Y. Slip Op. 03085 (3rd Dept., 2009). See also Matter or Antolino v. New York State
Liquor Authority, 38 A.D.3d 881, 882, 831 N.Y.S.2d 337 (21 Dept., 2007); see also
Oneonta Water St. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 279 A.D.2d 849, 851, 719
N.Y.S.2d 389 (3' Dept., 2001); see also Kelly v. Casale, 263 A.D2d 889, 890 — 891, 695
N.Y.S.2d 184 (3rd Dept, 1999); see also Murphy v. New York State Liquor Authority, 223
A.D.2d 818, 819,836 N.Y.S.2d 192 (3rd Dept., 1996).
Testimony given at the hearing made plain that there are several examples of conduct
that is violative of the Authority's rules which the Licensee has shown little regard for. As
Page 18 of 20
r

Serial NUmber: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975


Case Number: 118204
Docket Number: 976-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imran A. Jakam

noted between October of 2018 and December of 2017, members of the NYPD had gone
to the licensed premises for three intoxication incidents, four larcenies, two open
container incidents, two disorderly conduct summonses, two unlicensed cabaret
summonses, eight driving under the- Influence summonses, and six assaults. it has not
been shown that the existence of these repetitive violation hasever inspired the Licensee
to change its regulations or its conduct. Indeed, the lack of testimony from the Licensee
in this regard was striking. While Mr. Camigiki testified as to different rules that are in
effect at the licensed premises, and different Instructions that are given to the staff of the
licensed premises in order to deter such behavior, his testimony was not credible and
appeared, if anything, entirely coached.
In light of the large amount of credible testimony given regarding different violations which
have occurred at the licensed premises, repeatedly, I find that little to no supervision over
the conduct of the licensed business appears to have existed.

Accordingly, I find that this charge should be sustained.


Chain
I find that this charge should not be sustained.

The Authority alleges that on or before December 12, 2017, in violation of subdivisions
1and 3 of section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law there has existed a
sustained and continuing pattern of noise, disturbance, misconduct or disorder on or
about the licensed premises, related to the operation of the premises or the conduct of
its patrons, which adversely affects the health, welfare, or safety of the Inhabitants of
the area in which the licensed premises are located.

Subdivision 1of section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provides, in relevant
part: "Any license or permit issued pursuant to this chapter may be revoked, cancelled,
suspended and/or subjected to the imposition of a civil penalty for MUSS
Subdivision 3 of section 118 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provides, in
relevant part:
"(a) As used in this section, the term 'for cause' shall also include the
existenoe of a sustained and continuing pattern of noise, disturbance,
misconduct, or disorder on or about the licensed premises, related to the
operation of the premises or the conduct of its patrons, which adversely
affects the health, welfare or safety of the inhabitants of the area in which
such licensed premises are located."

Page 19 of 20
Serial Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number; 118204
Docket Number: 978-2017
Licensee: Mr. Imran A. Jairam

The Authority failed to prevent any evidence that any Inhabltantli of the area In which
the licensed premises psi located" was adversely affected in any way. Casting further
doubt on the premise that any Inhabitant of the area Was adversely affected is Officer
Rashevsidy's testimony that there are no residences within 1000 feet of the licensed
premises and Mr. Camiglia's testimony that the licensed premises is the only business
operating on the block at the times that the licensed premises is open for business.
Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the hearing, testimony, and evidence before me, I find that:

Charge 1: The Charge is not sustained.


Charge 2: The Charge is not sustained.
Charge 3: The Charge is not sustained.
Charge 4: The Charge is not sustained.
Charge 5: The Charge is sustained.
Charge 6: The Charge is sustained.
Charge 7: The Charge is sustained.
Charge 9: The Charge Is sustained.
Charge 9: The Charge is not sustained.

Dated: March 5, 2018


Cra orges
Administrative Law Judge

Page 20 of 20
NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR AUTHORITY
Hearing Bureau
317 Lenox Avenue
New York, New York 10027
immmsemormo.••••• X
IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL OR REVOKE

Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273976

Docket Number: 1890-2017


Case Number: 120158
Licensee: . KB Venture Group LLC, dlbla Love & Lust
225 47th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11220

Licensee Principal: Imran A, Jairam

••••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••• jlIlrAIMIIIIL.m•.......•••.w...


X

BEFORE: Craig Porges, Administrative Law Judge


Hearing Date: April 9, 2018
Hearing Location: Hearing Bureau, 317 Lenox Avenue, New York, NY
10027

Notice of Pleadings: March 19, 2018 (Second Amended)


Representative for Authority: Miriam Sardar
Thomas Rizzuti, Esq.

Representative for Licensee: Kerry Katsoris, Esq.


Witnesses for Authority: Police Officer Ishmeet Babar
Witnesses for Licensee: Frank Carniglia
Licensee Present: Yes

Other Persons Present None


Authority's Exhibits: SLA Ex. 1: Second Amended Notice of Pleading
SLA Ex. 2: Summons (dated 07/08/17) •
Serial Number. 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number: 120158
Docket Number 1890-2017
Licensee: KB Venture Group LLC.

Licensee's Exhibits: None

Hearing Recorded: Digitally

CHARGE

1. That on 07/08/2017 the licensee violated section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law and the terms of its alcoholic beverage license, in that the licensee extended or
transferred the license to another premises to wit: the sidewalk in front of the licensed
premises, without the permission of the State liquor Authority first obtained.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under the law of the State of New York, in an administrative proceeding as we have here,
I am required by law to find whether there Is "substantial evidence" to sustain each and
every charge brought against the Licensee by the New York State Liquor Authority (the
"Authority").

"Substantial evidence is 'less than a preponderance of evidence' and requires only that
there be enough 'relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support
a conclusion or ultimate fact.'" In m 2544 Cafe Concerto Ltd. v. New York State Liquor
Authority, 65 A.D.3d 260, 265 (1st Dept. 2009) (citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State
Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-81 (1978)). See SCR Lake Lounge, Inc. v.
State Liquor Authority, 87 N.Y.2d 206 (1995). "The question ... is whether a conclusion
or ultimate fact may be extracted reasonably--probatively and logically." City of Utica
Board of Water Supply v. New York State Health Department, 96 A.D.2d 710, 465
N.Y.S.2d 365, 368 (1983) (citations omitted).

Hearsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination and, if sufficiently


probative, it alone may constitute substantial evidence. Cafe La China Corp. v. State
liquor Authority, 43 A.D.3d 280 (1st Dept. 2007) (citations omitted). Uncontroverted
hearsay can form the entire basis for an administrative determination. Gray. v. Adduci, 73
N.Y.2d 741 (1988) (citations omitted).

'BASED UPON the testimony and record In this case, I, as the Administrative Law
Judge, hereby make the following findings of fact, law, and opinion:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The State Liquor Authority commenced these proceedings by serving on the Licensee a
Second Amended Notice of Pleading, dated March 19, 2018 (SLA Ex. 1), In accordance
with the Authority's standard procedure. On April 9, 2018, a hearing was held in this
matter at the Authority's Manhattan office.

Page 2 of 4
Serial Number: 1273975, Kings OP 1273975
• Case Number 120158
Docket Number: 1890-2017
Licensee: KB Venture Group LLC.
FINDINGS OF FACT

The Authority's witness, Officer Ishmeet Babar ("Officer Babar"), was at the licensed
premises on the date in question. Officer Babar was at the premises as part of a
directed patrol assignment. Officer Babar was standing outside the premises around
4:00am, when he observed a male individual leave the licensed premises with a bottle
of Hennessy liquor in his hand. Officer Babar approached the individual, and noticed
that the bottle was open, and only half filled. Officer Babar did not check or test the
liquid in the bottle in any way. Officer Babar instructed the individual that he cannot
leave a licensed premises with a bottle of liquor in his (the individual's) possession. The
individual told Officer Babar that he did not know that he was not allowed to do so.
There were security guards outside the club wearing shirts that said "Security' on the
back. According to Officer Babar, the guards did not say anything to the individual at
any time. Officer Babar, and the other police officer who was with him on patrol, did not
say anything to the security guards about the incident either.

The Licensee called Frank Camiglia as a witness. Mr. Camiglia has many
responsibilities at the licensed premises, including scheduling of security guards. Mr.
Camiglia, however, was not sure that he was at the licensed premises on the date in
question.

The policy at the licensed premises is that no customer Is allowed to leave with an
alcoholic beverage or bottle. If someone attempts to leave the location with an open
bottle, security is instructed to approach the customer and inform them that they either
have to dispose of the bottle in the trash, or give it to security. Mr. Camiglia did not
know the exact amount of security guards who were working at the licensed premises
on the date, and at the time, in question, however he surmised that it was probably
around 12 to 15 total, with 3 security guards being in the inside foyer area and three
also being outside by the exit door.

OPINION
Charge 1:
I find that this charge should not be sustained.

The Authority alleges that on July 8, 2017, 2017, in violation of section 111 of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, the Licensee extended or transferred its liquor license
to another premises. Section 111 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provides, in
relevant part: "A license issued to any person . . . for any licensed premises shall not be
transferable to any other person or to any other premises or to any other part of the
building containing the licensed premises except in the discretion of the authority. It
shall be available only to the person therein specified, and only for the premises
licensed and no other except If authorized by the authorfty."

Page 3 of 4
Serial Number: 1273976, Kings OP 1273975
Case Number 120158
Docket Number 1890.2017
Licensee: KB Venture Group LLC.
No evidence was submitted showing that the licensed premises transferred its license to
any other person or any other premises. Although a customer was observed holding a
bottle of (what was most likely) alcohol on the sidewalk outside of the licensed premises,
it was not shown by the authority that the licensed premises extended its license to any
other part of the building. The most likely conclusion is that a patron purchased the bottle
inside the licensed premises, and then discreetly snuck the bottle out without the staff of
the licensed premises having knowledge of his actions. No testimony was given that
anyone employed by or at the licensed premises knew of the individual's actions. As a
result, the licensee does not appear to have run afoul of Section 111.
I am required by law to find whether there is "substantial evidence" to sustain each and
every charge brought against the Licensee by the Authority. "Substantial evidence is 'less
than a preponderance of evidence' and requires only that there be enough 'relevant proof
as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact.'"
in re 25.24 Cafe Concerto Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority, 65 A.D.3d 260, 265
(let Dept. 2009) (citing 300 Grarnatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45
N.Y.2d 176, 180-81 (1978)). See S&R Lake Lounge, Inc. v. State Liquor Authority, 87
N.Y.2d 206 (1295). I find that the Authority has not satisfied that burden here.

Accordingly, I find that this charge should not be sustained.


CONCLUSION
Based upon the hearing, testimony, and evidence before me, I find that:

Charge 1: The Charge is not sustained.

Dated: April 20, 2018


C g Porges
Administrative Law Judge

Page 4 of 4
11 84% (01],

Dr. Oscar Caban. MD


*****.111111111111
9 ...cu.

Call me

Wed, Oct 4, 12:28 AM

Still didn't get a call back from


him on it yet, I'm on top of it
though

Thanks bro. This is critically


important. I must get that •
generator to that clinic.

Soon I hear back from him I'll


call you
Cesar Zuniga
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Chairperson BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
Jeremy Laufer COMMUNITY BOARD #7 Eric Adams
Borough President
District Manager
April 24, 2018

To Whom This May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of one of the businesses in my community, Love and Lust (KB Venture Group),
located at 225 47th Street, and its owner, Mr. Imran Jairam. Please note that this letter serves to relate
the experience of the Community Board office with this business and it is not tied to a liquor license
renewal. When this business renews its liquor license, my Board Members will have the opportunity to
review the application as they would that of any other business, independent of the experiences related
in this letter, if they so choose.

My community was very concerned when this business opened several years ago as Jaguars 3 (Red
Leopard) and, at the beginning, there were community complaints about the activities of patrons and
how the business operated. However, in the past four years our office has received no complaints about
the operation of the business nor the behavior of its patrons. In fact, we have record of only a few
quality of life complaints in the immediate vicinity and none have identified Love and Lust as the
progenitor of these few complaints.

While many of my Board Members are reticent about such entertainment venues, we do recognize their
right to exist within the law. Such reticence leads us to monitor these businesses closely and we believe
that they should be held to high standards. It is my judgement, as District Manager, that Love and Lust
meet such standards. In fact, my Board was comfortable enough with this business during their last
liquor license renewal that we passed on the chance to hold a local community meeting.

Again, this has been the experience of the Community Board office and individual Board Members may
hold different views of the business and we will continue to review all applications accordingly.

Sincerely,

-;---
Jeremy Lauf
District M ager

4201 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11232 (718) 854-0003 FAX (718) 436-1142
E-mail: bk07@cb.nyc.gov
Twitter: @BKCB7 Facebook Page: Board Seven Brooklyn
Serving Sunset Park, Greenwood and Windsor Terrace
EXHIBIT 2
5/25/2018 Culture of Government Corruption Damaging Business, Club Owner Sues I The Sanders Firm, P.C. I New York Civil Rights Lawyer

THE
HOME ABOUT US PRACTICE AREAS BLOG CONTACT US Q FREE CONSULTATION fir f ir
SANDERS
ALBANY NEW YORK YONK
FIRM,p.c. 518-915-6135 212-652-2782 914-2:

You Are Here:


BLOG / CULTURE OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION DAMAGING BUSINESS. CLUB OWNER SUES

lay

:3 Latest Posts
318

Culture of Gove
76
Corruption Darr
Business. Club
0
Sues

May 23, 2018

NYPD Random
Testing Progran
'Racially Flawec
Detective

May 16, 2018

Ex-NYC Deputy
Settle Racial Big

May 12, 2018

By Eric Sanders In Abuse of State Power, Blog, Civil Rights Law. News, Press Release

CULTURE OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION Most Viewed

DAMAGING BUSINESS, CLUB OWNER SUES


NYPD 'Supervis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Immunity' Resu


Sexual Harassrr
Lawsuit
NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER ERIC SANDERS, ESQ., OF THE
13420 views
SANDERS FIRM, P.C., ANNOUNCES THE FILING OF A $125 MILLION
NOTICE OF CLAIM CHALLENGING THE CULTURE OF NYPD Officer: Ti
Department Co
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AGAINST CLUB LOVE AND LUST
'Bias Attack' Ag,

1139 views
New York. May 22, 2018, - KB Venture Group, LLC d/b/a Club Love and Lust through owner Imran A. Jairam allege
after performing some market research, the decision was made to invest in 225 47th Street Brooklyn, NY. 11220.
'Monster Cop' S
Files Suit Again:
Money Crimes'
According to the claim. Jairam alleges the under served target market are people (primarily persons of color) Campaign
culturally connected to the hip-hop community with more than S5oo billion in discretionary income to spend upon
933 views
entertainment. The under served target market includes celebrities from the sports, media and entertainment
industries.

In October 2014. Jairam opened Club Love and Lust for business.

https://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/culture-of-government-corruption-damaging-business-club-owner-sues/ 1/7
5/2512018 Culture of Government Corruption Damaging Business, Club Owner Sues I The Sanders Firm, P.C. I New York Civil Rights Lawyer

Shortly thereafter Jairam claims, the City of New York through NYPD 72 Precinct Special Operations Lieutenant
William Meyer and New York State Liquor Authority Investigator Charles A. Stravalle began the campaign of
harassment to close the business due to he, the patrons and other stakeholders race and/or national origin.

According to the claim, the City of New York through Police Commissioner James P. O'Neill, Patrol Borough Brooklyn
South Assistant Chief Steven M. Powers, Commanding Officer 72 Precinct Deputy Inspector Emmanuel Gonzalez,
Meyer and Stravalle subjected he, the patrons and other stakeholders to unlawful 'selective enforcement' activities
despite a previous ruling in Sulkowska v. City of New York et al, 129 F.Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. January 24.2001). due to
their race and/or national origin.

Jairam claims, this is a citywide problem affecting other On Premises (OP) license holders too.

In November 2016, after discontinuing a business relationship with Elite Investigations Ltd., it made 'false' allegations
to the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau claiming the club paid for police protection. according to the claim.

Shortly thereafter, the City of New York through O'Neill, Powers, Gonzalez, Meyer, other police personnel in
conspiracy with Elite Investigations and Stravalle began issuing 'false' violations, 'false' summonses, engaged in
'false' arrests, legally baseless stop and frisks, 'unlawful' Business Inspections and other unlawful 'selective
enforcement' activities based upon the race and/or national origin of he, the patrons and other stakeholders.

Throughout this time period, several complaints about the 'selective enforcement' were filed with the City of New
York. O'Neill, Powers and Gonzalez.

Meanwhile, according to the claim, Gonzalez attempted to secure several personal 'benefits' from Jairam including
11 'free' roundtrip tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico and a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar
Caban Badillo. MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

On October 1. 2017, Jairam sponsored a hurricane relief fund raising event to benefit the people of Puerto Rico.

On October 4, 2017, Jairam claims while stilt taking 'selective enforcement' actions against he, the patrons and other
stakeholders, Gonzalez requested that they deliver a generator for family member or friend Dr. Oscar Caban Badillo,
MD 486 Ave Victoria Aguadilla, PR 00603.

Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez requested 11 'free' roundtrip tickets on charter flights to Puerto Rico, a fair market value
of approximately $8ok, according to the claim.

Jairam considered both of Gonzalez's requests even connected him via conference call to a well-known artist but,
ultimately denied them.

On April 24, 2018, apparently concerned with the level of 'selective enforcement' Brooklyn Community Board No.: 7,
gave Jairam a letter which reads in part. "My community was very concerned when this business opened several
years ago as Jaguars 3 (Red Leopard) and, at the beginning, there were community complaints about the activities
of the patrons and how the business operated. However. in the past four years our office has received no complaints
about the operation of the business nor the behavior of the patrons. In fact, we have record of only a few quality of
life complaints in the immediate vicinity and none have identified Love and Lust as the progenitor of these
complaints!

https://www.thesandersfirmpc.comiculture-of-government-corruption-damaging-business-club-owner-sues/ 2/7
5/25/2018 Culture of Government Corruption Damaging Business, Club Owner Sues I The Sanders Firm, P.C. I New York Civil Rights Lawyer

"They're trying to beat him into oblivion," Eric Sanders said. "Right now, the culture of governmental corruption is
trying to infiltrate this legitimate business. I'm going to stop them in their tracks."

ABOUT THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. offers those in the New York City area legal services related and connected to civil
rights. civil service rights. criminal law and discrimination. We firmly believe in everyone's individual rights that are
described and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. We understand that our freedoms
and liberties are sacrosanct and that they have been won in many and various hard-fought battles. We are
committed in every way to protecting your civil rights. We are your voice for justice!

CONTACT

Eric Sanders, Esq.


President and Owner, The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Business Phone: 212-652-2782

###

Read Notice of Claim

Read NY Daily News

Read NY Post

https://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/culture-of-government-corruption-damaging-business-club-owner-sues/ 3/7
e iri 84% )

Dr. Oscar Caban. MD


***** IMMO
9 .16,1W2.4
4lt s.R.rn .t

11. reder .;.,r4n.

Call me

Wed, Oct 4, 12:28 AM

Still didn't get a call back from


him on it yet, I'm on top of it
though

Thanks bro. This is critically


important. I must get that
generator to that clinic.

Soon I hear back from him I'll


call you

ts" (Message

0 II
Cesar Zuniga
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Chairperson BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
Jeremy Laufer COMMUNITY BOARD #7 Eric Adams
Borough President
District Manager
April 24, 2018

To Whom This May Concern:

I am writing on behalf of one of the businesses in my community, Love and Lust (KB Venture Group),
located at 225 47th Street, and its owner, Mr. lmran Jairam. Please note that this letter serves to relate
the experience of the Community Board office with this business and it is not tied to a liquor license
renewal. When this business renews its liquor license, my Board Members will have the opportunity to
review the application as they would that of any other business, independent of the experiences related
in this letter, if they so choose.

My community was very concerned when this business opened several years ago as Jaguars 3 (Red
Leopard) and, at the beginning, there were community complaints about the activities of patrons and
how the business operated. However, in the past four years our office has received no complaints about
the operation of the business nor the behavior of its patrons. In fact, we have record of only a few
quality of life complaints in the immediate vicinity and none have identified Love and Lust as the
progenitor of these few complaints.

While many of my Board Members are reticent about such entertainment venues, we do recognize their
right to exist within the law. Such reticence leads us to monitor these businesses closely and we believe
that they should be held to high standards. It is my judgement, as District Manager, that Love and Lust
meet such standards. In fact, my Board was comfortable enough with this business during their last
liquor license renewal that we passed on the chance to hold a local community meeting.

Again, this has been the experience of the Community Board office and individual Board Members may
hold different views of the business and we will continue to review all applications accordingly.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Lauf
District M • ager

4201 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11232 (718) 854-0003 FAX (718) 436-1142
E-mail: bk07@cb.nyc.gov
Twitter: @BKCB7 Facebook Page: Board Seven Brooklyn
Serving Sunset Park, Greenwood and Windsor Terrace
Eric Sanders. Esq.
a5and=r.F I

@BilldeBlasio @NYPDONeill
@NYPDChiefofDept @NYPDChiefPatrol Well,
well.. look what's posted in the 72 Precinct
closed Facebook Group. Your cops admitting
no one complains about @LUSTNY_
@STARDNR but, they're using department
resources to harass them
entorcement. I guess Vice and
Narco will be used to continue
the enforcement. If this guy
thought the precinct was tough
on him oh boy he has no idea
what is going to happen now.
1d Like Reply

Thomas Roller
The place is out of control and
should have been shut down
long ago. And no one complains
about the place because it's in
the middle of a commercial
block
P'vl - 24 May 201B

0 t1

Add adether TReet


Eric Sanders, Esq.

BiIIdeBlasi° @NYPDONeill
@NYPDChiefofDept @NYPDChiefPatrol Oh,
and that also means police personnel
'falsified' government records and 'perjured'
themselves in court to drive @LUSTNY_
@STARDNR out of business #abuseofpower
#monell #deliberateindifference
#racialanimus

what is going to happen now.


, Like Reply

Thomas Roller
The place is out of control and
should have been shut down
long ago. And no one complains
about the place because it's in
the middle of a commercial
block
Like Reply

Pete Smith
Geez Rocky how do you know
so much about it
::?;.1 PM - May 2C t

c) , ,11
Aco anothe, Tweet

Show act...I:1'01, BI repiies. iitduthng thosr that itiay contain cflensive content Show