Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------)[ LEONARDO BLAIR,

-versus-

Plaintiff,

THE CITY OF NEW YORK; RAYMOND KELLY, Commissioner ofthe New York City Police Department; and NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS WILLIAM CASTILLO and ERIC REYNOLDS,

Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------)[

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. This is a civil rights action to vindicate the rights of law-abiding New York City
residents to be free from unconstitutional and unlawful stops, searches and arrests by members of the New York City Police Department. While walking from his car to his Bron)[ home in November 2007, Plaintiff Leonardo Blair, a black New York City resident who works as a crime reporter for the New York Post, was stopped and frisked by New York City police officers. After aggressively stopping him and though he had committed no crime, the officers handcuffed Mr. Blair and took him to the 49th Precinct, where they placed him in a cell. In the cell Mr. Blair listened as the arresting officers reacted incredulously that, though he was black, he was not from "the projects." Shortly after learning that he was a Post reporter and had a Master's degree from Columbia University, the officers released Mr. Blair, though not before issuing him two summonses. A Bron)[ Criminal Court judge dismissed both summonses.

1

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 16
2. In the last two years alone, NYPD officers stopped and questioned New Yorkers nearly one million times, part of a dramatic increase in the Department's use of stop-and-frisk tactics since 2002. Of the nearly one million people stopped in 2006 and 2007, nearly 90% were engaged in entirely lawful activity, as they were neither arrested nor issued a summons. Members of minority communities are bearing the brunt of these NYPD practices, with blacks and Latinos being the target of nearly 90% ofNYPD stops.
3. TheNYPD is using its sweeping stop-and-frisk operation to build a massive database of law-abiding, minority New York City residents. After conducting stops and frisks, police officers complete forms that, among other things, include the name and address of the person stopped, and that information is then entered into a centralized NYPD database. As a result of this practice and the surge of stops and frisks over the last several years, the NYPD now has a database of hundreds of thousands if not more than one million law-abiding New Yorkers who, like Mr. Blair, now are at risk of becoming the subject of criminal investigations by virtue of being in the database.
4. As a consequence of his arrest, Mr. Blair has a permanent scar on his clean record. An unwarranted arrest is particularly troublesome for Mr. Blair because he is an immigrant; any arrest, even an unfounded one, must be reported on immigration and visa applications and may raise concerns with the immigration authorities.
5. As a result of their actions, the defendants have violated Mr. Blair's rights under the United States Constitution and under the Constitution and laws of the State of
2

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 16
New York. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendants' actions have been unlawful, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.
PARTIES 6. Plaintiff LEONARDO BLAIR is a twenty-eight-year-old resident of New York
City. 7. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation within the
State of New York. 8. Defendant RAYMOND KELLY is the Commissioner of the New York City
Police Department, which is an agency of the City of New York. He is sued in his official capacity. 9. Defendant OFFICER WILLIAM CASTILLO is a police officer employed by the NYPD who arrested Mr. Blair. He is sued in his official and personal capacities. 10. Defendant OFFICER ERIC REYNOLDS is a police officer employed by the NYPD who arrested Mr. Blair. He is sued in his official and personal capacities.
FACTS Leonardo Blair 11. Leonardo Blair is a black man who was born in Jamaica and immigrated to the
United States in 2006. After receiving a full-tuition scholarship, he graduated from the Columbia University Graduate School of Joumalism in May 2007. He has since worked as a journalist for the New York Post, where he works at the City Desk. He reports on a variety of issues in New York City, including crime.
3

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 4 of 16
As such, he talks with police officers on a regular basis and has strong and respectful professional relationships with them. 12. Mr. Blair is married and lives with his wife in Manhattan. She is also from Jamaica and works for the United Nations. 13. Mr. Blair remains close with members of his extended family who live in the Bronx. At the time of the incident, Mr. Blair lived in the Bronx with his aunt and uncle. 14. After arriving in New York City in 2006, Mr. Blair had an excellent relationship with NYPD officers. 15. Before November 28,2007, Mr. Blair had never been arrested. 16. Mr. Blair is currently in the United States on an Optional Practical Training visa, which permits a year of employment after completing an academic program. He is currently preparing to change his immigration status - a process fraught with uncertainty where any blemish in his record can be of importance. 17. Due to his arrest on November 28,2007, Mr. Blair was forced to complete additional paperwork and obtain legal advice on how to treat the arrest. Unsurprisingly, this has become a source of stress and anxiety for Mr. Blair.
Suspicionless Stop and Frisk of Leonardo Blair 18. Shortly after 8:00 PM on November 28, 2007, Mr. Blair was returning home from
visiting his then-fiancee and current wife and parked his car on Arnow Avenue near the comer of Arnow and Pearsall Avenues in the Bronx. He grabbed his gym bag, got out of his car and began walking towards his family's home. After
4

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 5 of 16
checking that he had locked his car door, he proceeded down Arnow Avenue toward Tenbroeck Avenue. 19. As soon as he turned onto Tenbroeck Avenue he heard a car screech to a stop. Tenbroeck Avenue was dark and quiet and, walking alone, the sound frightened Mr. Blair. 20. Given his working relationship with the NYPD, Mr. Blair was relieved to see that the car was an NYPD patrol car. He continued walking and the patrol car followed. 21. An NYPD officer rolled down his window and threateningly asked Mr. Blair what he was doing coming from the car. The aggressive tone of the question perplexed Mr. Blair. 22. Without any reasonable grounds to think that Mr. Blair had committed or was about to commit a crime, an officer, who Mr. Blair later learned to be Officer William Castillo, jumped out of the car and positioned himself so physically close to Mr. Blair's face that Mr. Blair had to take a step back. 23. Officer Castillo physically blocked Mr. Blair from proceeding along the sidewalk towards his home. Mr. Blair was caught off-guard by Officer Castillo's aggressive approach. 24. Officer Castillo angrily demanded of Mr. Blair whether he spoke English. Mr. Blair, surprised by Officer Castillo's mocking tone, replied under his breath in Spanish that he did not.
5

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 6 of 16
25. Officer Castillo continued to question what Mr. Blair was doing coming from his car. Mr. Blair answered, this time in English, that the car he was coming from was his own.
26. Officer Castillo ordered Mr. Blair to put his hands in the air, and Mr. Blair cooperated.
27. By this time, Officer Castillo's partner, who Mr. Blair later learned was Officer Eric Reynolds, had exited the patrol car.
28. Mr. Blair was not engaging in any illegal or improper activity, and nothing in his behavior or conduct would provide the basis for reasonable suspicion that he was engaging in any wrongdoing.
29. Officer Castillo then frisked Mr. Blair. 30. Officer Reynolds searched through Mr. Blair's gym bag. 31. The officers found nothing illegal.
Arrest, Imprisonment and Prosecution of Mr. Blair without Probable Cause 32. When the frisk and search were completed, Mr. Blair put his hands down. Officer
Castillo yelled that he did not say that Mr. Blair could put his hands down. 33. Though Mr. Blair had not done anything unlawful, Officer Castillo put Mr.
Blair's hands behind his back and placed him in handcuffs. 34. Mr. Blair asked Officer Castillo what he had done wrong. Officer Castillo replied
that he had disobeyed a lawful order.
6

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 7 of 16
35. Mr. Blair explained that his family lived nearby and asked to call them. Instead, Officers Castillo and Reynolds pulled Mr. Blair to the police car and pushed him into the backseat.
36. Both officers refused to explain to Mr. Blair why they had arrested him. 37. When they arrived at the 49th precinct, Mr. Blair again asked why he was being
arrested. Officer Castillo said that he was not being arrested but was receiving a summons. 38. Believing he was being mistreated, Mr. Blair asked the officers what had happened to "courtesy, professionalism and respect." He was told to "shut up." One of the officers told him that he should be quiet if he knew what was good for him. 39. The officers placed Mr. Blair in a cell in the holding area. 40. While Mr. Blair remained in the cell, Officer Castillo and Officer Reynolds emptied Mr. Blair's bag and pulled out his driver's license. 41. Reading the address from Mr. Blair's identification, Officer Castillo showed it to Officer Reynolds and incredulously remarked words to the effect, "Look at this, he's not even from the projects." 42. Mr. Blair replied that Officer Castillo should not assume him to be from the projects simply because he was black. He also said that this comment revealed racial profiling and that the officers knew as much. 43. Mr. Blair asked again why he was being incarcerated. Officer Reynolds replied that he was not incarcerated and asked Mr. Blair ifhe knew what the word incarceration meant.
7

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 8 of 16
44. Because of the degrading nature of the question, Mr. Blair responded that he had a master's degree from Columbia University and was a reporter for the New York Post.
45. Officer Castillo froze, and his face flushed. 46. Both officers left the holding area and retumed a few minutes later. 47. Mr. Blair was then told that he was free to go. He asked again what he had done
wrong, and the officers told him that he would see it on his summonses. 48. Officer Castillo issued two summonses, one alleging that Mr. Blair disobeyed a
lawful order and another alleging that Mr. Blair had made "unreasonable noise." 49. Officer Castillo issued the summonses even though he had no basis for believing
that Mr. Blair had done anything unlawful. These summonses were issued maliciously and without probable cause. 50. Mr. Blair got the officers' names, took his belongings and left the precinct at approximately 9:10 PM. 51. Mr. Blair's summonses required him to appear in Bronx Criminal Court on February 8, 2008. Mr. Blair appeared in court that day, causing him to miss a day of work. 52. When Mr. Blair appeared at Bronx Criminal Court un February 8, 2008, the summonses had not been withdrawn, which forced Mr. Blair to appear before a Criminal Court judge. He was represented by an NYCLU attorney, who requested that the summonses be dismissed because they were legally insufficient on their face. The judge reviewed both summonses and dismissed them.
8

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 9 of 16
53. Mr. Blair filed a Notice of Claim with the Comptroller's office of the City of New York on February 21, 2008.
54. Because of his arrest and detention, Mr. Blair could hardly sleep for a number of days, and to date, his heart races when he encounters police officers when he is not working. Furthermore, Mr. Blair now experiences anxiety and apprehension whenever he interviews local residents for his job.
55. Even though the summonses were dismissed, the mere fact that Mr. Blair was arrested poses problems for him given his current immigration status. To apply for a new visa, Mr. Blair must acknowledge to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that he was arrested.
56. Based on both officers' comments and actions during the arrest and at the precinct, Mr. Blair believes he was singled out for a stop, frisk and arrest because of his race.
57. At all times, Defendants' actions were taken under color oflaw.
Mr. Blair's Personal Information Remains in the NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk Database 58. According to the NYPD Patrol Guide, every time an NYPD officer stops and
frisks someone on the street, he or she must complete a "Stop, Question and Frisk" worksheet, also known as a UF-250, recording information about the encounter, including the name and home address of the person stopped. Furthermore, the NYPD Patrol Guide stipulates that a UF-2S0 must be completed whenever an officer believes that he has reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, even if the stop results in an arrest or summons.
9

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 10 of 16
59. In March 2006 the NYPD issued an Operations Order requiring that the infonnation from all UF-250s be compiled in a computerized database ("Stopand-Frisk Database").
60. Upon infonnation and belief, Mr. Blair's personal identifying infonnation was entered into and remains in the Stop-and-Frisk Database.
61. g_nXe~ruary 5, 2007, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) wrote to NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly to notify him of tbe privacy concerns implicated by the NYPD's collection and maintenance of a centralized database of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding New Yorkers and to request that the NYPD remove from its database identifying information about law-abiding persons who were stopped. The NYCLU also noted that New York Criminal Procedure Law requires that the Department seal the database records of any person who had been arrested and whose case ended favorably for tbe person. Accordingly, the letter asked that the NYPD take steps to assure that the stop-andfrisk records of these individuals be sealed in accordance with the sealing statute. As of the filing of this lawsuit, the NYCLU has received no response to its letter.
62. On July 25, 2007, the NYCLU requested that the NYPD produce its Stop-andFrisk Database pursuant to the New York State Freedom ofInfonnation Law (FOIL). The NYPD denied that request, including amongst its reasons an assertion that the database was subject to the sealing provision of the Criminal Procedure Law. After the NYCLU filed suit in November 2007 challenging this denial, the Assistant Corporation Counsel representing the NYPD initially asserted to the NYCLU that one defense available to the NYPD was a claim that
10

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 11 of 16
the database was subject to the sealing statute. The NYCLU responded that the attorney should check with the NYPD to see if it fact was sealing the database. Several weeks later, the City filed a motion to dismiss the NYCLU's lawsuit (which is pending). Conspicuously absent from that motion was any claim that the Stop-and-Frisk Database could not be disclosed because the NYPD was sealing it under the Criminal Procedure Law. 63. In 2006 and 2007 the NYPD arrested nearly 50,000 people in conjunction with stops and frisks. Upon information and belief, a substantial number of those arrests, like the arrest of Mr. Blair, resulted in favorable dispositions for the defendants such that the sealing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law would apply to all records associated with those arrests, including those in the Stop-andFrisk Database. 64. Upon information and belief, New York City and the NYPD have a policy, practice, or custom of failing to seal records in the Stop-and-Frisk Database of people who are arrested in conjunction with a stop and frisk and whose cases subsequently are dismissed or otherwise end favorably. 65. Upon information and belief, the NYPD, pursuant to the policy, practice, or custom alleged above, has not sealed information contained in its Stop-and-Frisk Database concerning Mr. Blair.
NYPD Pattern and Practice of Unconstitutional Stops and Frisks 66. Between 2004 and 2007, the NYPD reported stopping and questioning
approximately 1,700,000 people. Though police officers are legally allowed to
11

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 12 of 16
stop and question a person only if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting the person has engaged in or is engaging in unlawful activity, those 1,700,000 stops resulted in only approximately 195,000 arrests or summonses, leaving nearly 1,500,000 people who were stopped but who were engaged in entirely lawful activity. That nearly 90% of people stopped and questioned by police officers were law-abiding (and that there 1,500,000 of them) points to a widespread pattern and practice of unlawful stops. 67. Perhaps explaining the large number of stops of law-abiding New Yorkers, NYPD reports indicate that its officers are stopping persons for reasons that are impermissible. For instance, the single most common factor identified with stops in 2006 and 2007 was that the person was in a high crime area, with that factor being recorded in about 53% of the nearly 1,000,000 stops during those two years. Being in a high crime area -- which describes many New York City neighborhoods -- is not a lawful basis for a stop, and every stop that was based only on this factor or that was based on that and other impermissible factors would be unlawful. 68. The NYPD's refusal to disclose the Stop-and-Frisk Database has made it impossible at this point to further determine the extent of the Department's use of improper reasons for stopping and frisking persons. 69. The NYPD has been on notice for many years that its officers may be stopping large numbers of people without legal justification. In the aftermath of the February 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo, the New York State Attorney General issued a detailed report examining NYPD stop-and-frisk practices. Among other
12

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 13 of 16
things, that report concluded, based on an examination of the forms competed by officers when making stops, that no lawful basis for the stop had been provided by officers in nearly 40% of stops. 70. In 2001 the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), an independent New York City agency responsible for investigating reports of police misconduct, issued a report about complaints it had received about NYPD stops and frisks between January I, 1997 and March 31, 1999. The agency reported that, compared to with all other types of complaints about police-civilian encounters closed during this period of study, it was more likely to conclude that police officers had engaged in misconduct during stops and frisks. 71. According to the CCRB's 2001 report, NYPD officers "testified to using physical force to effect stops for 48% of the whites who filed complaints but 74% of the African-Americans and 76% of the Latinos." The report found that these differences in the use of force were statistically significant and thus were not due to chance. In addition, NYPD officers used guns to stop a greater percentage of blacks and Hispanics than whites. The report also found that these differences were statistically significant and not due to chance. 72. Since 2001 the number of complaints filed each year with the CCRB concerning stop and frisks more than tripled, going from about 1500 in 2002 to over 5000 in 2006. At the same time the proportion of complaints filed with the CCRB concerning stop and frisks has substantially increased. 73. According to NYPD reports, of the stops made between 2004 and 2007, 51.5% were of blacks, while whites comprised only 10.4% of those stopped. By
13

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 14 of 16
contrast, the most recent Census figures report that blacks make up only about 25% of the city population and whites 45%. These disparities cannot be explained by the race of suspects about whom the police receive reports, as such reports account for only a small percentage of all stops and frisks. Rather, the vast majority of stops and frisks are initiated by officers based on their own observations. 74. Despite being on notice for many years about unlawful stop-and-frisk practices and despite there being a particularly vigorous public controversy about those practices over the last year following the release of reports showing a huge increase in stop-and-frisk activity, the NYPD, upon information and belief, has taken no meaningful actions to monitor, supervise, or train its officers so as to reduce or eliminate the unlawful stops and frisks being conducted by members of the Department. 75. Upon information and belief, the NYPD and New York City have a policy, pattern and practice, or custom of stopping, frisking and questioning individuals without legal justification. 76. Upon information and belief, Mr. Blair was stopped, frisked, and arrested as a result of the NYPD and New York City'S policy, pattern and practice, or custom of stopping individuals without legal justification.
JURY DEMAND 77. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action on each and every one of his claims.
14

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 15 of 16
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 78. The Defendants' actions violated Plaintiff's rights tmder the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
79. The Defendants' actions violated Plaintiffs rights under sections 6 and 12 of Article I of the New York State Constitution. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
80. The Defendants' actions violated Plaintiffs rights under the common law of the State of New York to be free from false arrest; false imprisonment; malicious prosecution; and assault and battery. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
81. The Defendants have violated Plaintiffs rights under Article 78 of New York's Civil Practice Law and section 160.50 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 82. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3)--(4). 83. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state constitutional and state law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
84. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) in that Plaintiffs claims arise in the Southern District of New York.
15

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 1 Filed 05/07/08 Page 16 of 16
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court: (1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter; (2) Issue a declaratory judgment that the Defendants' actions violated the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and violated the Constitution and laws of the State of New York; (3) Issue an injunction requiring the Defendants to seal or expunge from their records, including but not limited to the NYPD's stop and frisk database, any
infonnation concerning Mr. Blair relating to his November 2007 arrest;
(4) Award compensatory damages; (5) Award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (6) Grant any othe~ relief the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

Dated: May 7, 2008 New York, N.Y.

ARTHUR EISENBERG (AE-2012) New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 607-3300 Counsel for the Plaintiff

On the Complaint:
ERIN BRAATZ* JONATHAN HERCZEG* JESSICA THOMAS* Law Students New York University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic
*The Plaintiff and the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation will be seeking leave of court to pennit these students to serve as attorneys in this matter pursuant to the Southern District's Plan for Student Practice in Civil Actions.

 
 Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 19 Filed 09/24/08 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------,)(
LEONARDO BLAIR, Plaintiff,
-against-
ar, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, el
Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------,)(

STIPULATION OF

SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF

DISCONTINUANCE

08 CV 4303 (SAS)

, .

!

, \

\ ,

." ,,~' )1\

?fi![J(~\1

WHEREAS, plaintiff commenced this action on or about May 7, 2008, seeking equitable and monetary relief for alleged violations of plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, arising out of plaintiffs detention on November 28,2007;
WHEREAS, plaintiff seeks to seal all data in defendants' computerized UF-250 database related to plaintiffs detention on November 28, 2007 in accordance with New York Criminal Procedure Law ("NYCPL") §160.50;
WHEREAS, defendants interpret NYCPL §160.50 to permit them to use the data in defendants' computerized UF-250 database related to plaintiffs detention on November 28, 2007 for investigative purposes, and plaintiff does not take a position on defendants' interpretation ofNYCPL §160.50;
WHEREAS, the parties desire to resolve plaintiff's claims and any and all related issues in this litigation without admitting any fault or Iiabi lity;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 19 Filed 09/24/08 Page 2 of 4
1. Plaintiff's claims for damages in the above-referenced action are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, and settled as specified below in ~~ 2 & 4.
2. Defendant City of New York agrees to pay plaintiff the sum of Fifteen Thousand and One Dollars ($15,001.00) in full satisfaction of any and all of plaintiffs' damage claims, plus attorneys' fees and costs as referenced below in ~~13& 4.
3. Plaintiff hereby assigns his rights to attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to his attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation.
4. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff's counsel, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00), as reasonable attorneys' tees, expenses and costs, in consideration of the terms of this Stipulation and Order.
5. In consideration for the payment of the sums specified in ~~ 2 & 4 above, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all of his claims made against all Defendants and to release all Defendants, as well as any present or former employees or agents of the City of New York, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action arising from, and were or could have been contained in, the complaint fited in this action.
6. Plaintiff shall execute and deliver to defendant's attorneys all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, the appropriate original general releases based on the terms of paragraph 5 above, annexed hereto in Exhibit A, and the appropriate original Affidavit of No Liens, annexed hereto in Exhibit B.
7. Defendant City of New York agrees to treat the data in the UF-250 database related to plaintiffs detention on November 28, 2007 as sealed and subject to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, unless otherwise ordered by a Court. Defendant City of
-2-

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 19 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 4
New York agrees to mark the computerized data accordingly in the UF-250 database within 90 days of the date that the Court so orders this Stipulation and to notify plaintiffs counsel In writing once the computerized data has been marked accordingly.
8. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by any of the Defendants that they have in any manner or way violated Plaintiffs rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regu lations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York or any other rules, regulations or bylaws of any department or subdivision of the City of New York. Plaintiff agrees not to use this stipulation or its contents in any form in any other litigation or settlement negotiations.
9. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City of New York.
10. This Stipulation contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the instant proceeding shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.
-3 -

Case 1:08-cv-04303-SAS Document 19 Filed 09/24/08 Page 4 of 4
11. Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief in the above-referenced action are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. Dated: New York, New York
SeptemberJ'1\)' 2008 MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorneys for City Defendants 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-0867
./~
Assistant
CHRIS10P ER DUNN
- 4-

 
 Case: 1:08-cv-04303-SAS As of: 01/28/2014 11:44 AM EST 1 of 3
CLOSED, CASREF, ECF, RELATED
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08−cv−04303−SAS

Blair v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Shira A. Scheindlin Referred to: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman (Settlement) Related Case: 1:08−cv−01034−AT−HBP Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/07/2008 Date Terminated: 06/25/2008 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Leonardo Blair

represented by Arthur Nelson Eisenberg New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 607−3300 Fax: (212) 607−3318 Email: arteisenberg@nyclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher T Dunn New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 344−3300 Fax: (212) 344−3318 Email: cdunn@nyclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Raymond Kelly Commissioner of the New York City Police Department
Defendant N.Y.C.Police Officer William Castillo
Defendant N.Y.C.Police Officer Eric Reynolds

Date Filed 05/07/2008
05/07/2008 05/07/2008

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against The City of New York, Raymond Kelly, William Castillo, Eric Reynolds. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 649999)Document filed by Leonardo Blair.(rdz) (mbe). (Entered: 05/09/2008)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to The City of New York, Raymond Kelly, William Castillo, Eric Reynolds. (rdz) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge Shira A. Scheindlin as possibly Related to 08−cv−1034. (rdz) (Entered: 05/09/2008)

Case: 1:08-cv-04303-SAS As of: 01/28/2014 11:44 AM EST 2 of 3

05/07/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008 05/12/2008
05/12/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 06/04/2008
06/04/2008
06/05/2008
06/12/2008 06/16/2008
06/25/2008 07/08/2008 07/21/2008

Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
2 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. William Castillo served on 5/8/2008, answer due 5/28/2008. Service was accepted by Sgt. Ruth Sharma. Document filed by Leonardo Blair. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
3 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Raymond Kelly served on 5/7/2008, answer due 5/27/2008. Service was accepted by Lt. Daniel Albano. Document filed by Leonardo Blair. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
4 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. The City of New York served on 5/7/2008, answer due 5/27/2008. Service was accepted by Clerk, New York City Law Department. Document filed by Leonardo Blair. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Eric Reynolds served on 5/8/2008, answer due 5/28/2008. Service was accepted by Sgt. Ruth Sharma. Document filed by Leonardo Blair. (Dunn, Christopher) (Entered: 05/12/2008)
CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:08−cv−01034−SAS. Notice of Assignment to follow. (jeh) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (jeh) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
6 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (jeh) (jeh). (Entered: 05/21/2008)
7 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 5/30/08 re: Defendants requests that the court grant their request for a sixty−day enlargement of the City defendant's time to respond to the complaint, until 7/28/08. ENDORSEMENT: request granted. All defendants may have until 7/28/08 to respond to the complaint. This will not affect the scheduling of an initial conference. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/3/08) (pl) Modified on 6/10/2008 (pl). (Entered: 06/04/2008)
9 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Dunn dated 5/30/08 re: Counsel for Plaintiff request an initial conference at the Court's earliest convenience. ENDORSEMENT: An initial conference is schedule for June 9 at 11:00 a.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/3/08) (tro) (Entered: 06/12/2008)
8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Jennifer Rossan dated 6/5/2008 re: Counsel writes to request that the initial conference be adjourned until 6/12, before 1:00 p.m. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. The conference is scheduled for 6/12/2008 at 12:00 p.m. SO ORDERED. ( Initial Conference set for 6/12/2008 at 12:00 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/5/2008) (tve) (Entered: 06/06/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 6/12/2008. (pl) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
10 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/12/08) (pl) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
11 ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE: This action is discontinued with prejudice but without costs. Restoration period set for 30 days. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/25/08) (db) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
12 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/12/08 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ama) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
13 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 7/21/2008 re: Counsel for defendants writes to request that the period for the action to be restored be extended one week until 8/1/2008. ENDORSEMENT: Defendant's request is granted. The period within which plaintiff may request restoration of the action is extended to 8/1/2008. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/21/2008) (tve) (Entered:

Case: 1:08-cv-04303-SAS As of: 01/28/2014 11:44 AM EST 3 of 3

08/01/2008 08/08/2008 08/18/2008 08/21/2008 09/19/2008 09/24/2008

07/21/2008)
14 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 7/31/08 re: Counsel for Defendants the City of New York and New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly request that the restoration period be extended another week until 8/8/08. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants' request is granted. Time for this action to be restored to the calendar is extended to August 8, 2008. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/31/08) (tro) (Entered: 08/01/2008)
15 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 8/8/2008 re: Requesting that the restoration period be extended one additional week until August 15, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. The time in which to restore the case to the calendar is extended to and including August 15, 2008. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/8/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
16 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 8/15/2008 re: Counsel respectfully request that the restoration period be extended one additional week until August 22, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Either party may restore the case to the calendar by August 22, 2008. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/15/2008) (jfe) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
17 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Sheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 8/21/08 re: Counsel writes to request an extension of the deadline by which plaintiff may request to restore the case to the calendar to September 19, 2008. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants request is hereby granted. Either party may restore the case to the calendar by September 19, 2008. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/21/08) (mme) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
18 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Jennifer Rossan dated 9/19/08 re: counsel writes to advise the Court that the parties have reached an agreement about the terms of the settlement of this matter and are in the process of obtaining the requisite signatures for the stipulation of Settlement and Order of Discontinuance. ENDORSEMENT: Request Granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/19/08) (djc) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
19 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE it is hereby stipulated and agreed that Plaintiffs claims for damages in the above−referenced action are hereby dismissed, with prejudice, and settled as specified in this order. Defendant City of New York agrees to pay plaintiff the sum of Fifteen Thousand and One Dollars ($15,001.00) in full satisfaction of any and all of plaintiffs' damage claims, plus attorneys' fees and costs as referenced in this order. Plaintiff hereby assigns his rights to attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs to his attorneys, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiffs counsel, the New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00), as reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs, in consideration of the terms of this Stipulation and Order. In consideration for the payment of the sums specified in 2 &4 above, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all of his claims made against all Defendants and to release all Defendants, as well as any present or former employees or agents of the City of New York, from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action arising from, and were or could have been contained in, the complaint filed in this action. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/24/08) (mme) (Entered: 09/24/2008)