Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
tv 13 -0076

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E__A__S__T__E__R__N___D__I_S_T__R__I_C__T___O__F___N__E__W___Y__O___R__K______----------------- x
YANAHIT PAPILLA

r COMPLAINT AND
JURY DEMAND· '.0 .,"

-against-

Plaintiff, DOCKET#:

I
.j.-

. (~ (~
.'-"'''! - ~," ' ; ~'-:)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK; POLICE OFFICER
REYES, M.J CHRISTOPHER FURDA; JOHN DOE #1-2 Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA by her attorneys, Stoll, Glickman & Bellina, LLP, for her complaint alleges as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a civil rights action in which plaintiff seeks relief for the violation of her

rights secured by 42 USC §1983, §1988, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

2. The claims arise from a November 16, 2011 incident in which Officers of the

New York City Police Department ("NYPD"), acting under color of state law, intentionally and

willfully subjected plaintiff to, inter alia, false arrest and false imprisonment.

3. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages (special, compensatory, and punitive) against

defendants, as well as an award of costs and attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as

the Court deems just and proper.

JURISDICTION

4. This action is brought pursuant to :2'8 USC §1331, 42 USC §1983, and the Fourth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Cons•tit.ution. 5. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,QOO:OO excluding interest and costs.

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2

VENUE 6. Venue is laid within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

New York in that Defendant City of New York is located within, anc! a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the claim occurred within the boundaries of the Eastern District of New

York.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Yanahit Padilla is a legal resident of the United States and at all times

here relevant resided in Kings County, City and State of New York. 8. The City of New York (or "the City") is a municipal corporation organized under

the laws of the State of New York. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant City, acting through

the New York Police Department (or "NYPD"), was responsible for the policy, practice,

supervision, implementation, and conduct of all NYPD matters and was responsible for the

appointment, training, supervision, discipline and retention and conduct of all NYPD personnel.

In addition, at all times here relevant, Defendant City was responsible for enforcing the rules of

the NYPD, and for ensuring that the NYPD personnel obey the laws of the United States and the

State of New York.

9. Officer Christopher Furda was, at all times here relevant, a police officer of the

NYPD, and as such was acting in the capacity of an agent, servant and employee of the City of

New York. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Officer Furda was plaintiff s

"arresting officer" and was under the command of the 72nd Precinct of the NYPD. Defendant

Furda is sued in his individual capacity.

10. All other individual defendants ("the officers"), including John Doe #1-2,

individuals whose names are currently unknown to plaintiff, are employees of the NYPD, and

2

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3

are sued in their individual capacities.

11. At all times here mentioned defendants were acting under color of state law, to

wit, under color pf the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the City

and State of New York.

NOTICE OF CLAIM

12. Within 90 days of the incident, plaintiff filed written Notice of Claim with the

New York City Office of the Comptroller. Over 30 days have elapsed since the filing of that

notice, and this matter has not been settled or otherwise disposed of.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff is a Mexican citizen, legally residing in the United States.

14. Plaintiff's primary language is Spanish. She has limited ability to communicate

in English. 15.

Up to and until November 15, 2011 plaintiff resided at 357 59th Street in Brooklyn

New York with her infant child and her child's father.

16. Slightly before midnight on November 15, 2011 plaintiffs child's father struck

plaintiff repeatedly causing significant bruising and swelling in her arm among other injuries.

17. Fearing for her safety, plaintiff called 911 and requested police be sent to her

address.

18. Defendants arrived at plaintiff's address in response to her phone call shortly after

midnight on November 16, 2011.

19. When defendants arrived, plaintiffs physical injuries were apparent and obvious.

20. Plaintiff attempted to speak with defendants and explain why she had called them,

but was unable to do so as none appeared to understand her in Spanish.

3

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MK.B.....-..RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
21. Defendants proceeded to interview plaintiffs child's father in English. 22. Upon information and belief, defendants made no attempt to take a statement from plaintiff. 23. Because defendants were unable or unwilling to communicate with her, plaintiff called 911 again and requested a Spanish speaking officer be sent to the scene. 24. A few minutes later additional officers appeared on the scene. Upon information and belief, at least one of these officers did speak Spanish. 25. Plaintiff started to explain the situation to the Spanish speaking officer. However, before she could do so, defendants instructed this officer to leave the scene as they were handling the situation. 26. Eventually plaintiff was forced to call her cousin to the scene to translate for her so that she could understand what the officers were telling her. 27. Even when plaintiffs cousin arrived defendants refused to take plaintiffs statement. 28. Defendants communicated to plaintiff, through her cousin, that they would not be arresting plaintiff's child's father. 29. Plaintiff tried again to explain what happened to her, and to show the defendants her injuries. 30. Defendants then put plaintiff in handcuffs and arrested her. 31. The arrest of plaintiff was made without probable cause, or reasonable suspicion that she had committed any crime. 32. To the extent the defendants relied on the statements of plaintiffs child's father in making the arrest, such reliance was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
4

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5

33. Plaintiff was taken to the police precinct, and then after several hours to central

booking. 34.

At .central booking a Court officer who spoke Spanish listened to plaintiff's

version of events. 35. This officer had plaintiff taken to New York Methodist Hospital at approximately
11:00 am where she was treated for bruising and swelling to her arm and shoulder and released

back into the custody of police officers. 36. Plaintiff was then transported back to central booking. After several more hours
at central booking, the King's County District Attorney's office declined prosecution and

plaintiff was released without charges. 37. Plaintiff was in police custody from approximately 12:30 am to approximately
4:00 pm on November 16,2011. 38. No arrest of plaintiffs child's father was made on November 16, 2011. 39. The fact that plaintiff was arrested resulted in a temporary order of protection
being issued which prevented plaintiff from seeing her child, and was later used against her in a family court proceeding which determined custody of her child.
40. At all times during the events described above, the defendants were engaged in a joint venture and formed an agreement to violate plaintiffs' rights. The individual officers assisted each other in performing the various actions described and lent their physical presence and support and the authority of their office to each other during said events. They failed to intervene in the obviously illegal actions of their fellow officers against plaintiff.
41. During all of the events above described, defendants acted maliciously and with intent to injure plaintiffs.

5

-- Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
DAMAGES 42. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiff suffered the following injuries and damages:
a. Violation of her rights pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of their person;
b. Violation of her right to Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendments to the United Stated Constitution;
c. Violation of their New York State Constitutional rights under Article 1, Section 12 to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure;
d. Violation of their New York State Constitutional rights under Article 1, Section 6 to due process;
e. Physical pain and suffering; f. Emotional trauma and suffering, including fear, embarrassment, humiliation,
emotional distress, frustration, extreme inconvenience, anxiety; g. Loss of liberty.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (42 USC § 1983)
43. The preceding paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 44. Defendants have deprived plaintiff of her civil, constitutional and statutory rights under color of law and have conspired to deprive her of such rights and are liable to plaintiff under 42 USC § 1983. 45. Defendants' conduct deprived plaintiffs of their right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
6

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
Constitution. Defendants' conduct also deprived plaintiffs of her right to due process of law, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
46. Defelldants falsely arrested plaintiff and failed to intervene m each other's obviously illegal actions.
47. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of defendants' wrongful acts. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(MUNICIPAL AND SUPERVISORY LIABILITY) 48. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 49. The City is liable for the damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of the conduct of their employees, agents, and servants, in that, after leaming of their employees' violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights, they failed to remedy the wrong; they have created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred and allowed such policies or customs to continue, and they have been grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful condition or event. The City has been alerted to the regular use of excessive force and false arrests by its police officers, but has nevertheless exhibited deliberate indifference to such excessive force and false arrests; that deliberate indifference caused the violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights in this case. 50. The aforesaid event was not an isolated incident. The City has been aware for some time, from lawsuits, notices of claim, complaints filed with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and judicial rulings suppressing evidence and fmding officers incredible as a matter of law, that a disturbing number of their police officers use excessive force, unlawfully search and seize citizens, bring charges against citizens with no legal basis, perjure themselves in charging instruments and testimony, and fail to intervene in and report the obviously illegal actions of their fellow officers. Nevertheless, the City has allowed policies and practices that allow the
7

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
aforementioned to persist. 51. For example, the well documented failures of the Civilian Complaint Review
Board ("the CCRB"), a City agency, to substantiate obviously meritoriolls citizen complaints have gone uncorrected. The CCRB regularly finds complainants lack credibility based on the fact that such complainants have also brought lawsuits to remedy the wrongs they have experienced, a practice that often results in not substantiating the most serious charges brought to them. In addition, the CCRB virtually never initiates their own findings of false statements against officers who have made false statements to the CCRB in their own defense, nor do they initiate findings that officers have failed to report their fellow officers' misconduct; thus, officers have no real incentive to come forward, or to testify truthfully at the CCRB. The CCRB has no enforcement mechanisms once making a finding against an officer; it can only make recommendations to the NYPD, once finding misconduct by an officer.
52. The NYPD, once receiving a substantiated complaint by the CCRB, fails to adequately discipline officers for misconduct. The NYPD Department Advocate, which is endowed with the responsibility of following up on substantiated CCRB charges, is understaffed and under-utilized. Furthermore, in the extraordinarily rare event that the CCRB substantiates a complaint and the Department Advocate proves the case in an internal trial against an officer, the police commissioner still maintains the power to reduce the discipline against such an officer.
53. Further, the City has no procedure to notify individual officers or their supervisors of unfavorable judicial review of their conduct. Without this notification, improper search and seizure practices and incredible testimony go uncorrected. Additionally, according to a report of the New York City Bar Association issued in 2000, the City has isolated their law department from the discipline of police officers, so that civil suits against police officers for actions taken in
8

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
their capacity as police officers have no impact on the officers' careers, regardless of the outcome of the civil actions. Alan Hevesi, as New York City Comptroller, in 1999 reported that there was a "a total .disconnect" between the settlements of even substantial civil claims and police department action against officers.
54. The City is aware that all of the aforementioned has resulted in violations of citizens' constitutional rights. Despite such notice, the City has failed to take corrective action. This failure and these policies caused the officers in the present case to violate plaintiffs civil rights, without fear of reprisal.
55. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the deliberate indifference of the City to the constitutional rights of the City's inhabitants.
56. The City is liable for the damages suffered by plaintiffs as a result of the conduct of their employees, agents, and servants, in that, after learning of their employees' violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights, they failed to remedy the wrong; they have created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred and allowed such policies or customs to continue, and they have been grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful condition or event. The City has been alerted to the regular use of excessive force and false arrests by its police officers, but has nevertheless exhibited deliberate indifference to such excessive force and false arrests; that deliberate indifference caused the violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights in this case.
TlURD CAUSE OF ACTION (CONSPIRACY)
57. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 58. Defendants agreed to violate the plaintiffs' rights in the manner described above. Further defendants made an agreement to attempt to cover up the assault committed against
9

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
plaintiff by her child's father. 59. Defendants took action in furtherance of this agreement by arresting plaintiff and
attempting to bring charges against her. 60. Plaintiff was injured as a result of defendants' conspiracy. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (CONSTITUTIONAL TORT) 61. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 62. Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiff's rights pursuant to §§ 5,
6 and 12 of the New York State Constitution. 63. A damages remedy here is necessary to effectuate the purposes of §§ 5, 6 and 12
of the New York State Constitution, and appropriate to ensure full realization of plaintiff's rights under those sections.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (NEGLIGENT HIRING & RETENTION) 58. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 59. Defendant City, through the NYPD, owed a duty of care to plaintiff to prevent the loss of liberty and mental abuse sustained by plaintiff. 60. Defendant City, through the NYPD, owed a duty of care to plaintiff because under the same or similar circumstances a reasonable, prudent and careful person should have anticipated an injury to plaintiff or those in a position similar to plaintiff's as a result of this conduct. 61. Upon information and belief, defendant officers were incompetent and unfit for their positions. 62. Upon information and belief, defendant City knew or should have known through exercise of reasonable diligence that the officer defendants were potentially dangerous and had
10

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
previously falsely arrested civilians without probable cause. 63. Defendant City's negligence in hiring and retaining the officer defendants proximately
caused plaintiff's injurij;!s. 64. Because of the defendant City's negligent hiring and retention of defendant officers,
plaintiff incurred damages described above. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR)
65. The above paragraphs are here incorporated by reference. 66. Defendants' intentional tortious acts were undertaken within the scope of their employment by defendant City of New York and in furtherance of the defendant City of New York's interest. 67. As a result of defendants' tortious conduct in the course of their employment and in furtherance of the business of defendant City of New York, Plaintiff was damaged.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. In favor of plaintiffs in an amount to be determined by a jury for each of plaintiff's causes of action;
B. Awarding plaintiffs punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury; C. Awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements of this
action; and D. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
11

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12

JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

DATED:

Brooklyn, New York December 28,2012

TO: New York City Corporation Counsel Office 100 Church Street, 4th floor New York, NY 10007
PO Christopher Furda - Shield #15674 NYPD 72nd Pet. 830 4th Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11232

; ;;ri}j; ·' ~~ By: Nicholas Mindicino, ESQ. Bar # NM0437 Attorneys for Plaintiff 475 Atlantic Avenue - 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11217 (718) 852-3710 NMindicino@stollglickman.com

12

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 44 PageID #: 200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM,

Plaintiffs,

13 CV 00076 (MKB) (RER)

-against-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, RAYMOND W. KELLY, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his individual and official capacities, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENZO TRADOLSE, in his individual capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FURDA, in his individual capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES #1 THROUGH #6, in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA,
LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ and the VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION PROGRAM respectfully allege as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

This civil rights action, brought on behalf of six limited English proficient

(“LEP”) New Yorkers and the Violence Intervention Program (“VIP”), an organization that

serves LEP domestic violence victims, challenges the New York City Police Department’s 1

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 44 PageID #: 201

(“NYPD”) discriminatory practice of denying interpreters to LEP individuals, which deprives

them of access to NYPD services. This practice is in stark contrast to the NYPD’s stated policy

that requires NYPD officers and other employees “to provide free language assistance” to LEP

individuals.

2.

More than four and a half years after Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued New

York City’s Executive Order 120 (“EO 120”), which requires city agencies to provide

interpretation services to LEP individuals; nearly four years after the NYPD first implemented

its NYPD Language Access Plan (“LAP Plan”); and more than two years after a November 2010

United States Department of Justice compliance review found the NYPD “not fully in

compliance” with the requirements of federal law, including Title VI and the Safe Streets Act,

regarding their provision of language services to LEP New Yorkers, the NYPD continues to

discriminate against LEP crime victims, victims of domestic violence and others who have

difficulty communicating in English.

3.

The NYPD’s denial of interpreter services has deprived Plaintiffs of their

right to report crimes, to protect themselves from dangerous abusers, and to communicate

effectively with the police in a wide range of circumstances.

4.

Not only does the NYPD fail to provide language assistance, it also degrades,

ridicules and otherwise mistreats LEP individuals who request interpreter services, actively

demeaning them for their lack of English proficiency. In some instances, LEP victims of

domestic violence are arrested because the NYPD relies solely on the reports of their English

proficient abusers.

5.

Defendants Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner

Raymond W. Kelly are responsible for overseeing and executing the NYPD’s policies. By

2

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 3 of 44 PageID #: 202

failing to adequately intervene or perform their professional duties, Defendants Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the City of New York, Police Officer Vincenzo Tradolse, Police Officer Christopher Furda and Police Officers John/Jane Does #1-6, are responsible for harm caused to LEP individuals, including the Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, the Equal Protection Clause and the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

6.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES is a resident of Brooklyn, New

York.

7.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO is a resident of Staten Island, New York.

8.

Plaintiff WENDY GARCIA is a resident of Queens, New York.

9.

Plaintiff LINA CARRION is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.

10.

Plaintiff SILVIA SORIANO is a resident of Staten Island, New York.

11.

Plaintiff MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ is a resident of Bronx, New York.

12.

Plaintiff VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM (“VIP”) is a nationally

recognized Latina organization dedicated to ending violence in the lives of women. VIP delivers

a full range of culturally competent services that enable women to become free of violence and

achieve their full potential. VIP has its main offices in New York, New York.

Defendants

3

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 4 of 44 PageID #: 203

13.

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation duly

incorporated and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized under

the laws of the State of New York to maintain a Police Department, the NYPD, which acts as its

agent in the area of law enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible.

14.

Defendant MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is and was, at all times

relevant herein, the Mayor of the City of New York with supervisory authority over all City

agencies, including the NYPD. He is sued in his official capacity.

15.

Defendant RAYMOND W. KELLY is and was, at all times relevant herein,

the Police Commissioner for the City of New York, with supervisory authority over all officers

and operations of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. Mr. Kelly is and was responsible

for hiring, screening, training, recruiting and managing all NYPD officers, including the

Defendants named herein. He is also responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the

NYPD. He is sued in his official capacity. The NYPD has its principal offices at One Police

Plaza, New York, 10038.

16.

Defendants VINCENZO TRADOLSE, CHRISTOPHER FURDA and

JOHN/JANE DOES #1-6 (the "Individual Officer Defendants"), are, and/or were, at all times

relevant herein, officers, employees and agents of the NYPD. They are sued in their individual

capacities.

17.

Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, and the Individual Officer

Defendants have acted under color of state law in the course and scope of their duties as agents,

employees and officers of the City and/or the NYPD in engaging in the conduct described

herein. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have acted for and on behalf of the City and/or

4

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 5 of 44 PageID #: 204

the NYPD with the power and authority vested in them as officers, agents and employees of the

City and/or the NYPD.

JURISDICTION

18.

This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343(a), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and

civil rights.

19.

Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

20.

Plaintiffs further invoke this court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any and all related state law claims.

21.

This court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants as they are domiciled

in New York, among other bases of personal jurisdiction.

VENUE

22.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391.

JURY DEMAND

23.

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their

claims.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME

24.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United

States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be

denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

5

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 6 of 44 PageID #: 205

federal financial assistance.” Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d). The

denial of meaningful access to services for LEP individuals is considered national origin

discrimination under Title VI.

25.

The Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d et seq., and its implementing

regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 42.201 et seq., prohibit discrimination, inter alia, on the

basis of national origin by programs funded in whole or in part from funds made available under

42 U.S.C. Chapter 46. 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(4).

26.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution guarantees equal rights and equal protection under the laws. Violations may be

remedied pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

27.

The Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution similarly

protects individuals from discrimination by the state or by any person acting under color of state

law. N.Y. Const., Art.1 § 11.

28.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from

unreasonable searches and seizures and the unreasonable use of excessive force by individuals

acting under color of state law. Violations may be remedied pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

29.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Violations may be remedied pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

30.

Article I, §9 of the New York State Constitution affords individuals the right to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

31.

The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), enacted in 1991,

prohibits discrimination based on national origin in public accommodations. NYC Code § 8-

6

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 7 of 44 PageID #: 206

107. The Law was extensively amended and strengthened in 2005 by the passage of the Local

Civil Rights Restoration Act, Local Law No. 85 of 2005.

32.

The NYCHRL provides:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the . . . national origin . . .of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, or, directly or indirectly, to make any declaration, publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place or provider shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of . . national origin . . . .

NYC Code§ 8-107(4)(a).

33.

Section 8-401 of the NYCHRL includes the following statement:

[t]he council finds . . .that the social and moral consequences of systemic discrimination are . . .injurious to the city in that systemic discrimination polarizes the city's communities, demoralizes its inhabitants and creates disrespect for the law, thereby frustrating the city's efforts to foster mutual respect and tolerance among its inhabitants and to promote a safe and secure environment.

34.

NYCHRL § 8-130 provides that:

The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed.

35.

New York State common law protects individuals from false arrest and false

imprisonment.

7

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 8 of 44 PageID #: 207

STATEMENT OF FACTS

NYPD’s Language Access Policy and Practice

36.

Nearly 25 percent of New York City residents over the age of five are limited

English proficient (LEP), and require language assistance in order to access the services of the

NYPD; 1.2 million of them are Spanish-speaking individuals. LEP New Yorkers are

disproportionately foreign-born; among New York City residents over the age of five,

approximately fifty percent of foreign-born residents are LEP, in contrast to only 6.5 percent of

U.S.-born residents.

37.

On July 22, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg issued Executive Order 120 (“EO 120”),

“Citywide Policy on Language Access to Ensure the Effective Delivery of City Services,” which

requires each City agency that provides direct public services, including the NYPD, to “ensure

meaningful access to such services by taking reasonable steps to develop and implement agency-

specific language assistance plans regarding LEP persons.” The Order further requires that each

city agency designate a Language Access Coordinator, develop an appropriate language access

policy and implementation plan, and provide language services based on at least the top six

languages spoken by the population of the City.

38.

In April 2009, the NYPD published its Language Access Plan (the “Plan”).

The Plan requires NYPD officers responding to LEP individuals to provide interpretation

services as necessary either via the Operations Unit, using NYPD employees to interpret, or

through the use of a contracted interpreter via Language Line (a telephonic interpreting

company). The Plan states that NYPD’s policy is to “take reasonable steps to provide timely and

meaningful access for LEP persons to the services and benefits that the Department provides to

8

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 9 of 44 PageID #: 208

the degree practicable.” The Plan further requires that “[w]hen performing law enforcement

functions, members provide free language assistance to LEP individuals whom they encounter

when necessary or whenever an LEP person requests language assistance services.”

39.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) subsequently reviewed the

Plan as implemented by the NYPD and found that the NYPD failed to comply with federal law,

including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Safe Streets Act. The DOJ’s

compliance review consisted of an in-depth administrative analysis of the NYPD’s policies and

procedures with respect to LEP individuals. On November 8, 2010, the DOJ issued a 43-page

report, addressed to Defendant Raymond Kelly, outlining various problem areas and

shortcomings in the Plan and its implementation (the “Compliance Review”). On June 14, 2012,

the NYPD released a revised Plan (the “Revised Plan”).

40.

In January and February of 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the NYPD’s

legal department, by telephone and in writing, to discuss the language barriers faced by LEP

clients, specifically as they relate to domestic violence victims. The NYPD declined to meet with

counsel.

41.

On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel received a written response from the

NYPD outlining a new program to allow police officers to access telephonic interpreters from

any available telephone at any time of day. According to the letter, this program was initiated as

a pilot program in Patrol Borough Queens South in July of 2011 and rolled out citywide in

February 2012.

42.

As set forth below, despite its adoption of language access policies, and

despite being notified by the DOJ of deficiencies in its policies and practices, the NYPD has

continued to routinely deny LEP individuals access to police protection and to the broader legal

9

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 10 of 44 PageID #: 209

system. Indeed, NYPD personnel not only fail to provide language services, but on many

occasions actively mock and humiliate LEP individuals who request such services, and retaliate

against them for making such requests.

43.

Victims of domestic violence and other crimes, such as the Plaintiffs and

clients of Plaintiff Violence Intervention Program, are particularly vulnerable to NYPD’s

unlawful practices, which leave them unable to communicate with police in emergency

situations, to get the protection they need, to file police reports, and to obtain medical assistance.

44.

Moreover, as the experiences of the Plaintiffs illustrate, NYPD’s failure to

provide language assistance to LEP domestic violence complainants frequently results in their

wrongful arrest or with threats to arrest them, rather than the arrest of their abusers.

Plaintiff Yanahit Padilla Torres

45.

Yanahit Padilla Torres is a twenty-six year old Spanish-speaking woman from

Mexico.

46.

Ms. Padilla Torres speaks very limited English. She can understand some

words but has difficulty with even the most basic phrases.

47.

Ms. Padilla Torres lives in Brooklyn with her four year-old son Anthony.

48.

From 2007 until 2011, Ms. Padilla Torres lived with her boyfriend, Anthony

Rovira, who was physically and verbally abusive to her. Anthony set up video cameras in their

apartment to monitor her activities.

49.

On November 15, 2011, Mr. Rovira grabbed Ms. Padilla Torres by the feet

and pulled her off the bed and began beating her. Ms. Padilla Torres pleaded with him to stop

but he did not. She screamed for help and her son came into the room. Mr. Rovira stopped

10

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 11 of 44 PageID #: 210

hitting her and left the room.

50.

Ms. Padilla Torres then called 911. She asked for someone who spoke

Spanish and a Spanish-speaking operator came on the phone. Ms. Padilla Torres told the

operator that her boyfriend was beating her. She asked if they would send an officer who spoke

Spanish.

51.

Two police officers arrived shortly afterwards, including Officer Christopher

Furda.

52.

When the officers arrived, they approached Mr. Rovira, who is proficient in

English, and began to speak with him. They did not speak with Ms. Padilla Torres even though

she had called 911. Ms. Padilla Torres approached the officers while they were speaking with

Mr. Rovira and tried to explain what had happened in Spanish. Officer Furda said something to

the effect of, “we don’t speak Spanish.”

53.

The officers continued to speak with Mr. Rovira, ignoring Ms. Padilla Torres,

who continued to ask for help in Spanish.

54.

Ms. Padilla Torres saw Mr. Rovira and the two officers smoking cigarettes

together and talking and felt she was not going to get any help. At this point, she called 911

again and asked them to send a Spanish-speaking officer to the scene. Ms. Padilla Torres told the

operator that her boyfriend had beaten her and that she could not communicate with the officers

who responded. The operator told her she would send a Spanish-speaking officer.

55.

In a little while, another patrol car arrived with an officer who spoke Spanish.

Ms. Padilla Torres showed him the bruises on her arm and told him, in Spanish, that Mr. Rovira

had hit her.

56.

The Spanish-speaking officer said that Mr. Rovira also had marks on him, and

11

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 12 of 44 PageID #: 211

that if she wanted to make a police report they would both be arrested and a judge would

ultimately decide what happened. Ms. Padilla Torres indicated that she still wanted to make the

report.

57.

Officer Furda spoke with this officer, and then the Spanish-speaking officer

told Ms. Padilla Torres that he needed to leave but that the other officers would take her report.

58.

Ms. Padilla Torres’ cousin, Janette Hernandez, arrived at this time. Ms.

Padilla Torres had called her and asked her to come to watch her son.

59.

Ms. Padilla Torres tried to ask the officers for their names and identification

numbers in English, but they ignored her and refused to speak to her. They continued to speak

only to Mr. Rovira.

60.

Ms. Padilla Torres called 911 for a third time, this time asking for a police

officer with a higher rank because the officers who responded were not assisting her.

61.

Officer Furda told Ms. Hernandez in English that Ms. Padilla Torres should

make a report stating that Mr. Rovira had not hit her because it would be easier. Ms. Hernandez

responded that Ms. Padilla Torres would never do that since Mr. Rovira had beaten her.

62.

A third patrol car then arrived. Officer Furda called Ms. Padilla Torres over

to him, put her in handcuffs and put her in the patrol car. She saw that Mr. Rovira was also put

in a patrol car but without handcuffs.

63.

Shortly thereafter, around 3 a.m., Ms. Padilla Torres arrived at the 72nd

precinct in Brooklyn. She was taken to a cell. She was given a piece of paper but could not

understand what was written on it.

64.

Since the officers had not explained what was happening, Ms. Padilla Torres

was scared, worried about her son, and afraid that she was being incarcerated for a long time.

12

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 13 of 44 PageID #: 212

65.

Ms. Padilla Torres spent the night in the cell. In the morning, around 8:00

a.m., she was taken to another location where she was photographed. While a woman was

patting her down, she touched Ms. Padilla Torres’ arm where she had a bruise from the beating.

It was very painful for Ms. Padilla Torres and the woman looked at the bruise and suggested she

be taken to a hospital for treatment. This woman took Ms. Padilla Torres over to a Spanish-

speaking employee.

66.

This employee examined the bruises and called over a supervisor who looked

at the bruises and said something to the effect of, “this is domestic violence.” Ms. Padilla Torres

was then taken in an ambulance to Methodist Hospital by Officer Furda.

67.

Officer Furda handcuffed Ms. Padilla Torres to the bed in the hospital, and

remained with her the whole time she was in the hospital, even accompanying her to the

bathroom. After she received treatment for her injuries, Officer Furda brought her back to the

precinct. When they arrived at the precinct at approximately 6:00 p.m., she was allowed to go

home. Ms. Padilla Torres was not provided with any explanation of why she had been arrested

and was not told whether there were charges against her.

68.

Mr. Rovira obtained an order of protection against Ms. Padilla Torres in

Family Court based on her arrest on November 15th. As a result of the protective order against

her, Ms. Padilla Torres spent one month and nine days separated from her three year-old son.

69.

Mr. Rovira has approached Ms. Padilla Torres on many separate occasions

since she obtained an Order of Protection against him on November 21, 2011.

70.

Because of the treatment she suffered on the night of November 15th, Ms.

Padilla Torres is fearful of calling the police in the future. She does not have confidence that the

police would help her and is fearful that they would arrest her again.

13

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 14 of 44 PageID #: 213

71.

Within ninety days after the claims alleged by Ms. Padilla Torres arose, a

written notice of claim, sworn to by the claimant, was served upon the defendants by personal

delivery of the notice, in duplicate, to the Comptroller’s Officer at 1 Centre Street, New York,

New York.

72.

At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and

adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.

73.

This action was commenced within one year and ninety days after the

happening of the events upon which the claims are based.

Plaintiff Arlet Macareno

74.

Arlet Macareno is a twenty-six year old woman from Mexico. Ms.

Macareno’s primary language is Spanish, and her ability to speak and understand English is very

limited.

75.

Ms. Macareno lives on Staten Island with her seven year-old son.

76.

Until recently, Ms. Macareno lived with her husband, Martin Cruz, in an

apartment on the second floor of a house owned by her brother-in-law. The downstairs

apartment was inhabited by various relatives of Mr. Cruz, including his twenty-two year-old

niece, Angela Guzman.

77.

Ms. Macareno’s husband has a history of violence, and as a result, Ms.

Macareno has been the victim of domestic violence on several occasions.

78.

One night in early August, 2012, in the presence of their son, Ms. Macareno’s

husband pushed her down a flight of stairs. As a result, she was seriously bruised, experienced

blurred vision and dizziness. 14

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 15 of 44 PageID #: 214

79.

When her niece, Ms. Angela Guzman, arrived home from work and saw Ms.

Macareno lying at the bottom of the stairs, she called 911.

80.

Shortly afterwards, four police officers and an ambulance arrived. Ms.

Macareno tried to explain to the officers what happened using her very limited English, but the

officers ignored her, electing instead to speak to her niece, who is proficient in English.

81.

Ms. Macareno tried to get the officers’ attention and asked for an interpreter

by saying “interprete” (interpreter). One officer, Vincenzo Tradolse, turned to her and said, in

English, words to the effect of, “I don’t care, go to sleep.” When Ms. Macareno persisted in

trying to explain that her husband had pushed her down the stairs, Officer Tradolse responded in

English, telling her to shut up and go to sleep.

82.

The officers continued to ignore Ms. Macareno’s repeated requests for an

interpreter, instead conducting a conversation with her niece.

83.

Officer Tradolse told Ms. Macareno, “callate la boca” (shut your mouth) and

again said he did not care each time she requested an interpreter. The other officers just stood

there watching and laughing.

84.

Officer Tradolse then said to her in sum and substance, “if you don’t callate la

boca, I will arrest you.” When Ms. Macarena continued to attempt to get Officer Tradolse’s

attention, he became angrier with her and then arrested Ms. Macareno.

85.

The officers took no action against Ms. Macareno’s husband, instead telling

him to go upstairs to sleep.

86.

The officers arrested Ms. Macareno, who was barefoot, and did not allow her

to retrieve her shoes from her apartment.

87.

Ms. Macareno was in a lot of pain from the fall and was very scared.

15

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 16 of 44 PageID #: 215

88.

There were two officers in the front of the police car, Officer Tradolse and

one other. There was another officer in the back next to Ms. Macareno. Since Officer Tradolse

had told her to “callate la boca,” Ms. Macareno then asked him, in Spanish, if he spoke Spanish.

He answered, “oh si, si hablo espanol. Gol! Gol! Mexico! Vamos Mexico! Chicharito!” This

means “oh, yeah, I speak Spanish, Goal! Goal! Mexico! Let’s go Mexico! (Chicharito is the

name of a Mexican soccer player.) The two officers in the front began to laugh and speak in

English, and Ms. Macareno could not understand what they were saying.

89.

When they arrived at the precinct at around 2 a.m., Officer Tradolse took Ms.

Macareno the long way around the car and made her walk through puddles in her bare feet.

Inside the precinct, the floor was wet and she slipped. The officers laughed at her. Ms.

Macareno asked for a lawyer or for someone who spoke Spanish to assist her.

90.

Finally, an officer who spoke Spanish came over to her. Ms. Macareno told

him that the other officers were making fun of her. This officer told her that it did not matter and

that it would be their word against hers. Ms. Macareno told him that her husband had pushed her

down the stairs and that she did not understand why she was arrested. He told her that she was

arrested for her lack of respect for the police. Ms. Macareno asked him why – was it because

she had asked for an interpreter? The officer then walked away.

91.

Ms. Macareno attempted to tell the officers and employees at the police

station that she was in pain from being pushed down the stairs. However, they failed to provide

Ms. Macareno with any medical treatment. Instead, they put her in a cell where she spent the

night.

92.

The next day, Ms. Macareno was taken to criminal court and charged with

Obstruction of Government Administration. Her brother paid for an attorney to represent her,

16

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 17 of 44 PageID #: 216

but the lawyer did not speak Spanish or provide her with an interpreter. Ms. Macareno

ultimately pled guilty to disorderly conduct.

93.

After she was released, Ms. Macareno and her cousin Nancy, went to the

120th precinct to file a report regarding the domestic violence incident. Her cousin, who speaks

English very well, filled out the form in English for Ms. Macareno. Although the officers were

aware that Ms. Macareno was a limited English proficient Spanish-speaker, no one at the

precinct told her that she could fill out the form in Spanish.

94.

A few days later, a detective called Ms. Macareno’s cousin Nancy and

informed her that Ms. Macareno would be given an Order of Protection and that she should

come to the precinct. Ms. Macareno went to the precinct, accompanied by her cousin. A

detective came to speak with her but instead of using an interpreter, he just spoke directly to her

cousin. Her cousin did not interpret the conversation but spoke directly with the officer. Ms.

Macareno did not understand what they were saying. Her cousin explained that she needed to go

to court to get the Order of Protection. Ms. Macareno said she felt she had been arrested for

asking for an interpreter. When her cousin told the detective this, the detective said that Ms.

Macareno had been charged with obstructing the investigation.

95.

On August 8, 2012, Ms. Macareno obtained a Temporary Order of Protection

against her husband, which is still in effect. A few days later, an officer accompanied Ms.

Macareno to her apartment to gather her belongings. The officer who accompanied her did not

speak Spanish and did not use an interpreter to speak with her. Her cousin accompanied her as

well. While they were at the apartment, her husband’s family, her cousin, and the officer had a

long argument in English. Ms. Macareno could not understand most of the conversation.

17

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 18 of 44 PageID #: 217

Finally her cousin explained to her that she had a right to stay in the apartment with her son and

that her husband had to leave.

96.

As she had nowhere else to go, Ms. Macareno decided to stay in the apartment

with her son. However, the first day she was in the apartment without her husband, he came to

the apartment and refused to leave. Ms. Macareno was scared and left. While she was gone, he

changed the locks and she could not re-enter.

97.

When Ms. Macareno went with her cousin to the precinct to complain that she

had been locked out of her home and that her husband had violated her Order of Protection, the

same English-speaking detective who had spoken to her the last time she was at the precinct was

there and again failed to use an interpreter to communicate with her. Again, her cousin spoke

directly to the detective to explain what happened and Ms. Macareno was not offered any way to

communicate with the police herself.

98.

As a result of the arrest and the treatment she received from the police, Ms.

Macareno feels traumatized. Ms. Macareno feels that if something happened to her, she would

not call the police or go to a precinct again because she fears the police and does not believe they

would protect her.

Plaintiff Wendy Garcia

99.

Wendy Garcia is a thirty-three year-old Spanish-speaker from Guatemala.

Her English is very limited.

100.

Ms. Garcia lives in Queens with her two sons, ages five and seven.

101.

In August, 2012, Ms. Garcia was in an intimate relationship with Alex

Moncada.

18

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 19 of 44 PageID #: 218

102.

On August 20, 2012, in Ms. Garcia’s apartment, Mr. Moncada pushed Ms.

Garcia and she fell to the floor. He also slammed a door on her, injuring her elbow and foot.

103.

Because Mr. Moncada had been violent with her before, and she did not want

the violence to escalate, Ms. Garcia called 911. Ms. Garcia requested a Spanish-speaking

operator and was able to explain in Spanish what had happened to her.

104.

Shortly afterward, four police officers arrived at Ms. Garcia’s building, none

of whom spoke Spanish. When Ms. Garcia requested a Spanish speaker, one of the officers told

her that there was nobody who could speak Spanish to her. The officer said something to the

effect of, “No Spanish, only English.” Ms. Garcia then struggled in English to tell the officer

that she would not be able to explain what had happened in English.

105.

The police officer then asked her in English, “you ok?” and Ms. Garcia

responded that she was not ok. Her elbow hurt from the fall and being crushed in the door, but

she was not sure of the word for elbow in English.

106.

The officer then instructed her to sit in a corner and went over to speak to Mr.

Moncada, who speaks English well.

107.

Concerned that she would not be able to tell her side of the story, Ms. Garcia

called her brother and requested that he translate for her.

108.

When she tried to hand the phone to the police officer and to explain that her

brother would translate, the police officer said, “no, no” and took the phone away. The officer

then threw the phone on the counter.

109.

Frustrated and scared, Ms. Garcia began to cry. One of the officers asked her

something to the effect of, “why are you crying?” Ms. Garcia again tried to communicate in

English that she needed to speak to someone in Spanish. The police officer said something to the

19

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 20 of 44 PageID #: 219

effect of, “no, only English.”

110.

One of the police officers gave Ms. Garcia a form to fill out with her personal

information and room to make a statement. No one told her she could write in Spanish, but she

did write a statement in Spanish. No one gave her a copy of this form.

111.

After speaking exclusively to Mr. Mocada, the officers wrote a report. Ms.

Garcia then heard the officers say something to Mr. Moncada about arresting her. Ms. Garcia

understood Mr. Moncada when he said that she should not be arrested because of her children.

112.

One of the officers asked Ms. Garcia if she had pushed Mr. Mocada, and she

tried to explain what had actually occurred, but was unable to do so due to her limited English.

The police officers then completed the report and gave a copy to Mr. Moncada but not to Ms.

Garcia.

113.

Ms. Garcia tried unsuccessfully to explain to the officers that she wanted Mr.

Moncada to leave because he did not reside there. However, the officers never asked Mr.

Moncada to leave and never asked Ms. Garcia whether she wanted him to leave.

114.

As the police officers were leaving, the one who had spoken to Ms. Garcia

previously again spoke to her in English. She understood him to say he was not going to arrest

her now but they would arrest her if she called 911 again.

115.

When the police left, Ms. Garcia felt deceived, frustrated and scared because

the police had threatened to arrest her. She felt that if Mr. Moncada became violent again, she

would not call the police. Instead of staying in her apartment, where Mr. Moncada remained,

Ms. Garcia woke up her son and took him to her mother’s house in Brooklyn.

116.

On or about August 22, 2012, Ms. Garcia went to the Family Justice Center in

Queens and spoke to a counselor from Sanctuary for Families about the events of August 20th.

20

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 21 of 44 PageID #: 220

The counselor called the 102nd Precinct for Ms. Garcia and found out that a report had been

filed against Ms. Garcia by Mr. Moncada on the night of August 20th alleging that she hit him.

117.

On or about August 23rd, Ms. Garcia went to the 102nd Precinct to get a copy

of the report. When she requested a Spanish interpreter, she was told she would have to wait.

118.

After waiting for ten minutes, she called a counselor from VIP, where she had

been seeking services as a domestic violence victim. Her counselor attempted to call the

precinct herself. The counselor then called the supervisors at Borough Patrol Queens South, and

requested an interpreter for Ms. Garcia.

119.

Rather than call a qualified interpreter, Ms. Garcia heard an officer at the

precinct ask around the precinct if anyone spoke Spanish. Ultimately, the officer found someone

with limited Spanish who assisted Ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia said she wanted a copy of the police

report but was told that it was not in the system.

120.

The officers in the precinct gave Ms. Garcia the number of a police officer she

could call for further assistance in Spanish but she felt so awful from the whole experience that

she left the precinct without seeking further assistance.

121.

Ms. Garcia was frustrated and disheartened that the police repeatedly refused

to communicate with her in Spanish when she needed help. As a result of this incident, Ms.

Garcia distrusts the police and feels she cannot call upon them because she fears that she will be

arrested if she seeks assistance in the future.

Plaintiff Lina Carrion

122.

Lina Carrion is a thirty-nine year old woman who was born in Ecuador. Her

primary language is Spanish and she speaks very limited English.

21

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 22 of 44 PageID #: 221

123.

Ms. Carrion lives in Brooklyn, New York with her ten year-old daughter,

Jennifer Pizarro, and Ms. Carrion’s two brothers.

124.

On August 12, 2012, Ms. Carrion found out that her boyfriend had been

sexually abusing her daughter for a period of approximately three months. The next day, Ms.

Carrion brought Jennifer to Lutheran Hospital to be examined.

125.

Upon arrival at the hospital, Jennifer and Ms. Carrion were interviewed by an

English-speaking nurse through an interpreter, and then by a Spanish-speaking social worker.

126.

The social worker told Ms. Carrion that she was going to call the police

because of the sexual abuse. Ms. Carrion asked her to request a Spanish-speaking officer since

her English is very limited.

127.

When two English-speaking police officers arrived at the hospital, Ms.

Carrion again requested an officer who spoke Spanish. One of the officers made a phone call,

but when two additional officers arrived shortly thereafter, neither spoke any Spanish.

128.

Ms. Carrion again stated that she needed someone who could speak to her in

Spanish, but was told in sum and substance that an interpreter was not needed because her ten-

year-old daughter speaks English.

129.

Given the intimate nature of the situation and in light of her desire to

understand the officers’ communication with her young daughter, Ms. Carrion again requested

an officer who spoke Spanish.

130.

Despite Ms. Carrion’s repeated requests for a Spanish-speaking officer, the

officers proceeded to interview Jennifer in English for approximately thirty minutes. Ms.

Carrion could not understand what was being said. Despite Ms. Carrion’s repeated protests, the

interview continued without an interpreter.

22

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 23 of 44 PageID #: 222

131.

Ms. Carrion was extremely upset that she could not understand the

conversation. She complained to the social worker and asked her if she could interpret, but the

social worker was very busy and said she could not.

132.

After a period of time, two additional officers arrived who did not speak

Spanish. They helped finalize the police report and had Ms. Carrion’s daughter fill in a portion

in English.

133.

One of the officers asked Ms. Carrion to sign the report. Despite the fact that

she was unable to understand what the report said, Ms. Carrion signed it. Neither she nor her

daughter was given a copy of the report.

134.

The officers’ failure to provide Ms. Carrion with an interpreter or Spanish-

speaking officer prevented Ms. Carrion from being able to communicate what she knew about

the assaults on her daughter to the police officers, provide support to her young daughter during

a very sensitive time and to understand the steps the police were taking regarding the abuse.

135.

Ms. Carrion felt upset and frustrated, and felt that she was being discriminated

against by the police.

Plaintiff Silvia Soriano

136.

Sylvia Soriano is a thirty-four year old Spanish speaker from Mexico. Her

ability to communicate in and understand English is very limited.

137.

Ms. Soriano lives in Staten Island with her husband, Jose Velez, and three of

her four children, aged 2, 5, and 15.

138.

Ms. Soriano moved to Staten Island from the Bronx in December 2011. Since

relocating, her family has received repeated threats and been subjected to multiple acts of

23

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 24 of 44 PageID #: 223

violence by other residents of the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) project where

they live. She believes her family is a target of threats because they are Mexican.

139.

Ms. Soriano’s 18 year-old son, Jose Franco, relocated to Mexico after being

beaten up and threatened for being Mexican by residents in the NYCHA project where they live.

140.

In mid-August, 2012, Ms. Soriano was in a park near her home with her

husband and three children, when approximately fifteen teenagers approached a group of

children playing and made a circle around them. The teenagers hit and spat on the children, and

one of the teenagers repeatedly threw a basketball at Ms. Soriano’s five year-old. Ms. Soriano

called 911, explaining in Spanish what was occurring.

141.

The teenage perpetrators continued to taunt and threaten Ms. Soriano’s

children. When she attempted to protect her children, one of the teenagers took out a gun,

pointed it at her head, called her a “Fucking Mexican,” and instructed her to leave the area. Her

husband also heard one of the perpetrators say words to the effect of “this won’t end until you

leave.” They continued to taunt the Soriano family until Ms. Soriano requested that another

person in the park take a photograph of them, at which point they ran away. Before they left,

the teenager with the gun told Ms. Soriano’s daughter that her mother better “get out of his face”

or he would kill them.

142.

When the police did not respond after about fifteen minutes, Ms. Soriano’s

husband called 911 again to complain that they were in danger and the police had not arrived.

The responding officers, who did not speak Spanish or use interpreters to communicate with Ms.

Soriano and her husband, arrived after another ten minutes.

143.

Ms. Soriano struggled to tell them that she needed to speak with someone who

spoke Spanish. The officer responded to her request saying in sum and substance “this is

24

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 25 of 44 PageID #: 224

America, you have to speak English.” When Ms. Soriano’s daughter attempted to tell the

officers what happened, they instructed Ms. Soriano and her family to return to their home.

144.

Then Ms. Soriano became desperate, pointing to the cameras on the building

because she thought there would be recordings of the people who had assaulted her family. The

officers did not understand what she was trying to communicate and without attempting to

understand, began to laugh.

145.

Later that day and in the days that followed, the Sorianos were taunted and

threatened by the same teenagers.

146.

When Ms. Soriano went to the NYCHA office to request a transfer to another

housing project because of the threats, she was told that she needed to provide NYCHA with a

police report.

147.

NYCHA gave Ms. Soriano a crime report form, which she tried to fill out and

mailed to the 120th Precinct. A few days later, she went to the precinct to check on it. No one

spoke to her in Spanish and they refused her requests for an interpreter, stating in sum and

substance that no one at the precinct spoke Spanish.

148.

A police officer then offered to speak to Ms. Soriano’s daughter in English,

and told her that the computers were not working and that they needed to come back another

day. He handed her a form and told Ms. Soriano she could fill it out and mail it back.

149.

Ms. Soriano did send the form in but it was sent back to her with instructions

in English saying that she needed a complaint number and could get that number by calling the

precinct. 150.

On October 1, 2012, Ms. Soriano returned to the 120th Precinct with her

attorney. Her attorney requested an interpreter for Ms. Soriano in order to file a police report.

25

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 26 of 44 PageID #: 225

An officer told her attorney that no one was available who spoke Spanish, and instead asked the

attorney if she could interpret for Ms. Soriano. When her attorney refused, and pointed to the

sign regarding the provision of free interpreter services, the officer sighed and rolled his eyes.

After making Ms. Soriano and her attorney wait for approximately fifteen minutes, he eventually

found a Spanish-speaking officer who took Ms. Soriano’s complaint.

151.

On January 5, 2013, a neighbor in Ms. Soriano’s apartment building began

banging on the walls and door to Ms. Soriano’s apartment. When Ms. Soriano’s husband opened

the door, the man began insulting them in English and saying things to the effect of, “you

fucking Mexicans” and “fucking immigrants” and threatening them with violence. Ms.

Soriano’s fifteen year-old daughter called 911. After twenty-five minutes when no police

officers had arrived, she called again. When speaking with the 911 operator, Ms. Soriano’s

daughter requested that the police send a Spanish-speaking officer to her home because her

parents do not speak English well.

152.

Approximately five officers arrived at the home and none of them were able

to communicate with the Soriano family in Spanish. Ms. Soriano said to one officer, “yo no

hablo Ingles” (I don’t speak English). The officer responded something to the effect of “no

Spanish.”

153.

Ms. Soriano’s fifteen year-old daughter interpreted what the police were

saying for her parents. The police said that there was nothing they could do and that the family

should make a complaint with the NYCHA housing office. The officers did not offer to file a

police report for the family.

154.

Because they feared for their safety, on January 7, 2013, Ms. Soriano and her

husband returned to the 120th precinct to attempt to file a police report about the ongoing threats

26

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 27 of 44 PageID #: 226

from their neighbors. Ms. Soriano requested assistance in Spanish at the precinct and was told

that no one was there who could speak Spanish.

155.

Ms. Soriano’s husband attempted to communicate with the officers in the

precinct in very basic English. He tried to explain that the family was receiving ongoing threats

and harassment because they are Mexican. The officers did not take a police report. Ms.

Soriano’s husband felt he could not explain everything that he wanted to because he was not able

to speak to someone in Spanish.

156.

In early 2013, Ms. Soriano called 911 at approximately 2:00 a.m. when she

found her daughter’s boyfriend in her apartment without her permission. Ms. Soriano

subsequently sought an Order of Protection against him on behalf of her daughter because he is

twenty-four years old and her daughter is fifteen. Additionally, she fears for her daughter’s

safety with him.

157.

When the police responded to her call, Ms. Soriano could not communicate

the situation to them because they did not speak Spanish or offer her an interpreter. One of the

officers asked Ms. Soriano if she spoke English. When she answered no, the officer said

something to the effect of, “then there is nothing we can do.” The police officers began to laugh

and left the premises.

158.

The NYPD officers’ failure to provide Ms. Soriano and her husband with an

interpreter, both at their home and at the 120th precinct, deprived Ms. Soriano of access to police

protection. NYPD’s refusal to provide her with assistance from a Spanish-speaking officer or

interpreter also prevented her from being able to file reports about various threats against her and

her family, and impeded Ms. Soriano’s ability to transfer to a safer NYCHA project.

159.

As a result of her inability to file the appropriate reports, Ms. Soriano fears for

27

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 28 of 44 PageID #: 227

the lives and safety of her family, feels helpless, and feels she is being discriminated against because of her national origin and because she is unable to speak English.

Plaintiff Maria Irma Henriquez

160.

Maria Irma Henriquez is a twenty-six year old woman who was born in El

Salvador.

161.

Ms. Henriquez has very limited English and also cannot read in English.

162.

Ms. Henriquez is the survivor of extreme domestic violence at the hands of

her former partner and the father of her son, Mr. Juan Guzman-Torres. Ms. Henriquez lived with

Mr. Guzman-Torres from 2007 until late 2009.

163.

Ms. Henriquez and Mr. Guzman-Torres have a child together, Eric Guzman,

who was born on February 3, 2008. Ms. Henriquez also has a child from a previous relationship,

Katerin Mejia Henriquez, who was born on January 30, 2003.

164.

After approximately one month of living together, Mr. Guzman-Torres began

to abuse Ms. Henriquez on a regular basis. He would also prohibit her from leaving the house by

taking her keys. Mr. Guzman-Torres was a habitual drinker and would become very violent

when inebriated.

165.

Ms. Henriquez suffered regular bruising and bleeding from the beatings. Mr.

Guzman-Torres would often punch her, pull her hair, hold a knife to her, and throw plates of

food at the walls. The abuse happened almost on a daily basis.

166.

Ms. Henriquez was also abused throughout her pregnancy with their son. On

many occasions, Mr. Guzman-Torres would beat her while she was pregnant and threaten to kill

the unborn fetus. Ms. Henriquez was fearful of leaving him and had no relatives or friends to

28

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 29 of 44 PageID #: 228

turn to because Mr. Guzman-Torres would not permit her to be in contact with anyone.

167.

One night in February 2008, when Eric was approximately one month old,

Mr. Guzman-Torres violently abused Ms. Henriquez and held a knife to her neck. When he fell

asleep later, she took her baby and climbed down the fire escape. Freezing and injured from the

beating, she called 911. Mr. Guzman-Torres was arrested.

168.

Ms. Henriquez later allowed Mr. Guzman-Torres to return home because she

was desperate. She had no way of supporting herself and no one else to turn to. The abuse

continued.

169.

During the next four years, Ms. Henriquez estimates that she called the police

approximately fifteen times as a result of the violence. Because of the severity of her head

injuries that resulted from the beatings, she has memory problems making it difficult to

remember many dates and details.

170.

When Ms. Henriquez would call the police after being abused, Mr. Guzman-

Torres would often leave the home. Sometimes police would respond, but on more than one

occasion, no one ever arrived.

171.

Usually Ms. Henriquez would speak in Spanish with the 911 operator, but

when the police would arrive, no one would communicate with her in Spanish or offer to get her

an interpreter. Because the police rarely were able to communicate with her, she often was not

able to file police reports when the police came to her home. The police would often resort to

attempting to communicate with her using hand signals and speaking in English.

172.

Ms. Henriquez was only able to file a Domestic Incident Report on

approximately two occasions, July 2, 2008 and July 29, 2008.

173.

On November 30, 2008, the violence had escalated and Ms. Henriquez was

29

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 30 of 44 PageID #: 229

living in fear of Mr. Guzman-Torres. One day she called 911 when Mr. Guzman-Torres was in

the home and the police came and arrested him. Ms. Henriquez does not remember any of the

police officers communicating with her in Spanish. As a result of this arrest, Ms. Henriquez was

able to secure her “U” visa, securing her U nonimmigrant status.

174.

When Mr. Guzman-Torres was released, he no longer lived with Ms.

Henriquez but would continue to follow her, harass her, meet her at her workplace and violate

the Order of Protection she had secured against him.

175.

Sometimes Ms. Henriquez would call 911 when he violated the Order of

Protection or abused her. Sometimes she would call once or twice a week because he would find

her and beat her. The officers who responded to her calls usually did not communicate with her

in Spanish and did not allow her to make a Domestic Incident Report.

176.

Ms. Henriquez did not feel that the police understood her and as a result, did

not feel that they took the violence seriously.

177.

On September 14, 2011, Ms. Henriquez left the restaurant where she worked

at approximately four or five a.m. Mr. Guzman-Torres grabbed her on the street and put her in

his car. He began insulting her, beating her and holding her by the hair with one hand while

driving with the other. He was inebriated and driving very fast. Ms. Henriquez tried to open the

window and tried to scream; she even tried to throw herself out of the car.

178.

Mr. Guzman-Torres continued to beat her in this manner for approximately

one and half hours. Mr. Guzman-Torres threatened to kill her. Ms. Henriquez lost

consciousness for part of the time because of the beating. Ms. Henriquez thought she would die.

Finally, he threw her out of the car into the street with oncoming cars. As she was thrown out,

she grabbed the mirror which fell off of the car.

30

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 31 of 44 PageID #: 230

179.

Ms. Henriquez, who was visibly injured and disheveled, called 911 after

wandering about in a daze. The police arrived but they did not speak Spanish. They did not

offer her an interpreter or otherwise attempt to communicate with her in Spanish to find out what

had happened. They took her to her home and left her with her aunt. She was not given an

opportunity to make a report or asked to make a statement. The police officers did not ask her

who had hurt her.

180.

Ms. Henriquez immediately called her lawyer, Marisol Arriaga, at the Legal

Aid Society who had been assisting her with her immigration case. On September 16, 2011, Ms. Arriaga called the 50th precinct in the Bronx and spoke with DVPO Grogan. She explained to

Officer Grogan that Ms. Henriquez had been severely brutalized and needed to file a report and

that she would be coming to precinct shortly. Ms. Arriaga then prepared a letter to the precinct

requesting that they provide Ms. Henriquez with interpretation services in order to file a report

about the violent episode.

181.

Ms. Henriquez went to the precinct with the letter from Ms. Arriaga but even

after presenting the letter from Ms. Arriaga to employees at the precinct no one there offered to

provide her with an interpreter or take her report.

182.

A Spanish-speaking receptionist looked up her name in the computer system

and explained that Mr. Guzman-Torres had made a report against her stating that she had broken

the mirror on his car. Ms. Henriquez stated that she had been violently assaulted by him and that

she needed an Order of Protection. The receptionist told her that they could not help her make a

report.

183.

Mr. Guzman-Torres was never arrested as a result of this incident and Ms.

Henriquez never secured an Order of Protection against him as a result of this incident. Later

31

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 32 of 44 PageID #: 231

that day Mr. Guzman-Torres called her to tell her that he had filed a report against her. He also

showed up at her apartment with the report and waved it in her face, laughing and saying that she

would never be able to make a report against him and threatening her with more violence. This

was extremely traumatizing to Ms. Henriquez.

184.

Ms. Henriquez has extensive injuries as a result of the years of violence that

she suffered, including regular migraine headaches, very severe memory problems, almost

constant pain, vision problems, and difficulty understanding people who talk to her.

185.

Ms. Henriquez never tried to seek assistance from the police again because

she feels they are not on her side and will not assist her.

Plaintiff Violence Intervention Program

186. The Violence Intervention Program, Inc. (“VIP”) is a nationally recognized non-

profit organization that aims to remedy and to prevent violence against women. VIP delivers a

full range of services including on-site counseling, residential accommodations and child care.

VIP has offices in Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens.

187.

VIP serves approximately 1,400 women per year and annually receives

approximately 12,000 hotline calls. The majority of VIP’s clients are Spanish-speaking women

with limited English proficiency.

188.

VIP counselors and advocates regularly interact with LEP domestic violence

victims who report experiencing language barriers when attempted to communicate with the

NYPD both at the station houses and in the field with officers who respond to 911 calls.

189.

VIP clients are regularly told by the NYPD that there is no one who can

communicate with them in Spanish and that they must speak English.

32

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 33 of 44 PageID #: 232

190.

English speaking police officers often communicate only with their English-

speaking abusers of VIP clients and do not speak directly with the LEP victim at all.

191.

As a result, many VIP clients, in addition to experiencing fear, frustration and

humiliation, are denied vital assistance and are prevented from filing police reports and making

statements.

192.

As a result of NYPD’s failure to provide language access services, VIP

counselors and advocates are regularly compelled to spend portions of their work day assisting

LEP clients in communicating with the NYPD. VIP staff members frequently call precincts

and/or other NYPD locations to complain about lack of interpreter services, interpret over the

phone with the NYPD when the NYPD fails to provide interpreters for their clients, and

accompany LEP clients to precincts in order to interpret for them.

193.

The NYPD’s failure to provide interpretation for LEP individuals imposes a

significant and ongoing burden on VIP staff members as they attempt to assist their clients. The

constant need to assist LEP clients in communication with the NYPD means that counselors are

often unavailable to provide the numerous other services that VIP offers.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VI OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000(d), et seq.

194. herein.
195. government.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth The NYPD is a municipal agency in receipt of funding from the federal
33

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 34 of 44 PageID #: 233

196.

Discrimination based on race and national origin, is prohibited by recipients

of federal financial assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq.

197.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice, intentionally

discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origins and limited English proficient

status in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations.

198.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages and have been deprived of their rights under the civil rights laws.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE SAFE STREETS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d

199.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

200.

The Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, and its implementing regulations

prohibit discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of national origin by programs funded in whole or

in part from funds made available under 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(4). The regulations were

promulgated by the United States Department of Justice and codified at 28 C.F.R. § 42.203.

201.

The NYPD receives federal funding that subjects it to the requirements of the

Safe Streets Act.

202.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice, intentionally

discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origins and limited English proficient

status in violation of the Safe Streets Act and its implementing regulations.

203.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and have been deprived of their rights under the Safe Streets Act and its

implementing regulations.

34

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 35 of 44 PageID #: 234

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION

204.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

205.

Defendants denied Plaintiffs equal access to the services and protections of

the NYPD based on their national origins. Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

206.

Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their

Fourteenth Amendment rights. A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

207.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CONSTITUTION

208.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein

209.

Defendants denied Plaintiffs equal access to the services and protections of

the NYPD based on their national origins. Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the New York State Constitution.

210.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 35

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 36 of 44 PageID #: 235

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES UNDER U.S CONSTITUTION

211.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

212.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice of denying language

services to limited English proficient individuals, prevented Plaintiffs from filing complaints and

reports and otherwise communicating with police officers from whom they sought assistance.

213.

Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs of their First

Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. A cause of action is

created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

214.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT UNDER ARTICLE I, §9 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

215.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

216.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice of denying language

services to limited English proficient individuals, prevented Plaintiffs from filing complaints and

reports and otherwise communicating with police officers from whom they sought assistance.

217.

Defendants thereby deprived Plaintiffs of their right under the New York

State Constitution to petition the government.

218.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

36

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 37 of 44 PageID #: 236

suffered injuries and damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN UNDER NEW
YORK CITY’S HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

219.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

220.

Defendant NYPD is a public accommodation under the NYC Human Rights

Law.

221.

Defendants’ custom and practice of refusing to offer and provide

interpretation services to limited English proficient Plaintiffs and others seeking to access NYPD

services intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs and other persons of foreign national origin

by denying them access to the services and protections of the NYPD in violation of the New

York City Human Rights Law.

222.

Defendants’ degrading and dehumanizing treatment of Plaintiffs constitutes

intentional discrimination based on their national origin and deprives them of their rights under

the New York City Human Rights Law.

223.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and damages in an amount to be

determined by the court.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISPARATE IMPACT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN
UNDER NEW YORK CITY’S HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

224.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

225.

Defendant NYPD is a public accommodation under the NYCHRL.

37

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 38 of 44 PageID #: 237

226.

Defendants’ custom and practice of refusing to offer and provide

interpretation services to limited English proficient Plaintiffs and others seeking to access NYPD

services disparately impacts Plaintiffs and other persons of foreign national origin by denying

them access to the services and protections of the NYPD offered to English speakers, in violation

of the New York City Human Rights Law.

227.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and damages in an amount to be

determined by the court.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MACARENO PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
AGAINST OFFICER TRADOLSE AND JOHN DOES 1-3

228.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

229.

Defendants wrongfully and illegally arrested and detained Plaintiff Macareno.

230.

The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest and detention

of Plaintiff Macareno was carried out without any basis, without Plaintiff’s consent, and without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In fact, Ms. Macareno, who is a victim of extreme and

repeated domestic violence, attempted to communicate with and repeatedly asked for an

interpreter to communicate with Defendants and was repeatedly denied, as alleged herein.

Defendants, without hearing her story, arrested her without cause.

231.

By using excessive force against Ms. Macareno and by failing to provide her

with necessary medical treatment, Defendants deprived her of the rights, remedies, privileges,

and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, including, but not limited to,

38

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 39 of 44 PageID #: 238

rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

232.

Officer Tradolse and John Does 1-3 acted, or failed to act, or to intervene,

under color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and/or within the scope of

their respective employments as NYPD officers. Said acts or failures to act or intervene by

Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of

their powers. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive

Plaintiff Macareno of her constitutional rights.

233.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct detailed above, Plaintiff

Macareno suffered injuries and damages alleged herein.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MACARENO UNDER STATE LAW AGAINST
OFFICER TRADOLSE AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-3

234.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

235.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Ms. Macareno, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and color of

state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely arrested and

falsely imprisoned Ms. Macareno. At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants acted

forcibly in apprehending and arresting Ms. Macareno.

236.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Macareno’s

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct 39

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 40 of 44 PageID #: 239

toward Ms. Macareno.

237.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

238.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF PADILLA TORRES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 AGAINST OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES 4-6

239.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

240.

Defendants wrongfully and illegally arrested and detained Plaintiff Padilla

Torres.

241.

The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest and detention

of Plaintiff Padilla Torres was carried out without any basis, without Plaintiff’s consent, and

without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In fact, Ms. Padilla Torres, who is a victim of

domestic violence, attempted to communicate with and repeatedly asked for an interpreter to

communicate with Defendants and was repeatedly denied, as alleged herein. Defendants,

without hearing her story, arrested her without cause.

242.

By arresting and prosecuting Ms. Torres, Defendants deprived her of the

rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States,

40

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 41 of 44 PageID #: 240

including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution. A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

243.

John/Jane Does 4-6 acted, or failed to act, or to intervene, under color of state

law and in their individual and official capacities and/or within the scope of their respective

employments as NYPD officers. Said acts or failures to act or intervene by Defendants were

beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers.

Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff Torres of

her constitutional rights.

244.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct detailed above, Plaintiff

Padilla Torres suffered injuries and damages alleged herein.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF PADILLA TORRES UNDER STATE LAW
AGAINST OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES 4-6 AND CITY OF NEW YORK

245.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

246.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Ms. Padilla Torres, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and

color of state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely

arrested and falsely imprisoned Ms. Padilla Torres. At all relevant times, the Individual

Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending and arresting Ms. Padilla Torres.

247.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Padilla Torres’

41

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 42 of 44 PageID #: 241

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Ms. Padilla Torres.

248.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

249.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

1. Declare that Defendants’ actions violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S.

Constitution, the New York Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe

Streets Act, the laws of New York State, and New York City Human Rights Law;

2. Enjoin further violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights by issuing an injunction requiring

the NYPD to:

a. Abide by laws and policies requiring the provision of interpreter services;

b. Refrain from unlawful treatment of LEP and foreign-born individuals;

c. Institute and implement policies and programs with respect to the provision of

interpreter services and treatment of foreign-born and LEP communities that comply with all

legal requirements;

d. Establish a system for tracking and monitoring NYPD practices regarding the use

of interpreter services;

e. Institute measures to ensure compliance with NYPD policies regarding language

services, including ongoing documentation of the provision of interpreter services.

42

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 43 of 44 PageID #: 242
f. Develop and implement appropriate training for members of the NYPD regarding treatment of LEP and foreign-born communities including when to provide an interpreter, how to properly work with interpreters, sensitivity training and cultural competence;
g. Develop appropriate supervisory procedures regarding the treatment of foreignborn and LEP communities and the provision of interpreter services to LEP individuals;
h. Implement a system of reporting to the Plaintiffs and the Court regarding the steps taken to cure the violations of the Plaintiffs’ and other LEP individuals’rights;
3. Issue a judgment against the City of New York in an amount to be determined by the Court, including compensatory damages for injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonable;
4. Award Plaintiffs damages against Officer Tradolse, Officer Furda and John Does 1-6 to the extent that their liability is based upon actions that were reckless, willful, wanton, and malicious undertaken in their individual capacities, in an amount which is fair, just, and reasonably designed to punish and deter said conduct;
5. Order Defendants to pay reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiffs; 6. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: September 12, 2013 New York, N.Y.
AMY TAYLOR, ESQ. NANCY GOLDHILL, ESQ. EDWARD JOSEPHSON, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER LAMB, ESQ. STEPHANIE TAYLOR, ESQ. LEGAL SERVICES NYC 40 Worth Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013
43

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 33 Filed 09/12/13 Page 44 of 44 PageID #: 243 (646) 442-3600 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF, ESQ. 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 763-5000 (t) (212) 763-5001 (f) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
44

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs,
-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13-CV-0076 (MKB) (RER)

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

JOCELYN SAMUELS Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
CHRISTINE STONEMAN Special Legal Counsel Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
MICHAEL MULÉ Attorney Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
LAURA COON Special Counsel Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
JENNIFER MONDINO Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice

LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 254-7000
AMEET B. KABRAWALA Assistant U.S. Attorney
(Of Counsel)
Attorneys for the United States of America

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 343
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
A. Language-Based Discrimination Constitutes a Form of National Origin Discrimination Prohibited by Title VI .................................................................... 4
1. DOJ and Other Federal Agencies Have Consistently Found that Language-Based Discrimination Constitutes a Form of National Origin Discrimination ................................................................................. 4
2. Courts Have Consistently Found that Language-Based Discrimination Constitutes National Origin Discrimination ...................... 7
B. Failure by Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance to Comply with the Nondiscrimination Requirements of Title VI, Including the Requirement to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Individuals, May be Proof of an Intent to Discriminate.................................................................... 10
1. Plaintiffs Allege Intentional Discrimination ............................................. 10
2. Recipients of Federal Funds are on Notice of Their Title VI Obligation to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Individuals................. 15
3. DOJ’s Compliance Review of NYPD’s Policies Made The NYPD Aware Of Continuing Problems In Interviewing LEP Witnesses and Victims .............................................................................. 18
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 20

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 344
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES
Aghazadeh v. Maine Med. Ctr., No. 98-421, 1999 WL 33117182 (D. Me. June 8, 1999) .......................................................... 9, 15 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) ..................................................................................... 6 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001)............................................................................ 9, 10 Almendares v. Palmer, 284 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Ohio 2003) ................................. 11, 12, 14, 15 Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) ............................................................................................ 7 Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) ...................................................................................... 17 Blue Tree Hotel Inv. (Can.), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212 (2d Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 16 Bryan v. Koch, 627 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1980)................................................................................. 17 Cabrera v. Alvarez, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 1283445 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013).................................................................. 10, 11, 15 Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449 (1979) ............................................................... 12 Colwell v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................... 9, 15 Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................ 14 Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (2013).................................................................. 7 Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582 (1983)...................................................................................................................... 17 Jones v. Gusman, ___ F. R. D. ___, 2013 WL 2458817 (E.D. La. June 6, 2013).............................................................................. 9, 14 Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)................................................................................. 6, 8, 9, 17 Madison-Hughes v. Shalala, 80 F.3d 1121 (6th Cir. 1996) ............................................................ 5 Mendoza v. Lavine, 412 F. Supp. 1105 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) ............................................................... 9 Nat'l Multi Housing Council v. Jackson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 425 (D.D.C. 2008)............................... 6 Pabon v. Levine, 70 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) .......................................................................... 9
ii

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 345
Pryor v. NCAA, 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 12 Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1983) ..................................................... 12, 13, 14 South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 254 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D.N.J. 2003) ............................................................................................... 12 United States Dep't of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597 (1986)...................................................................................................................... 17 United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Ariz. 2012) ............................. 7, 9, 15 Vasquez v. City of New York, No. 99-CV-4606, 2000 WL 869492 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2000) ................................................... 17 Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977).................... 12, 14 Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. School Dist., 702 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 2012) .......................................... 10
FEDERAL STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 517............................................................................................................................... 1 42 U.S.C. § 2000d................................................................................................................. 1, 4, 15 42 U.S.C. § 3789d........................................................................................................................... 1
FEDERAL REGULATIONS 6 C.F.R. § 17.115 .......................................................................................................................... 17 7 C.F.R. § 15.4 .............................................................................................................................. 17 10 C.F.R. § 1040.4 ........................................................................................................................ 17 15 C.F.R. § 8.5 .............................................................................................................................. 17 22 C.F.R. § 141.4 .......................................................................................................................... 17 24 C.F.R. § 1.5 .............................................................................................................................. 17 28 C.F.R. Part 42....................................................................................................................... 1, 19 28 C.F.R. § 42.105 ........................................................................................................................ 17 28 C.F.R. § 42.401 .......................................................................................................................... 5 28 C.F.R. § 42.405(d)(1)............................................................................................................... 11
iii

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 346
28 C.F.R. § 50.3 .............................................................................................................................. 5 29 C.F.R. § 31.6 ............................................................................................................................ 17 31 C.F.R § 51.59 ........................................................................................................................... 17 32 C.F.R § 300.6 ........................................................................................................................... 17 34 C.F.R. § 100.4 .......................................................................................................................... 17 43 C.F.R. § 17.4 ............................................................................................................................ 17 49 C.F.R. § 21.7 ............................................................................................................................ 17
OTHER AUTHORITIES Department of Justice Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency; Policy Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,123, 50,123 (Aug. 16, 2000)..............................................................................5, 6 Department of Justice Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455 (June 18, 2002).................................................................6, 7, 15, 17 Executive Order No. 12250, Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (Nov. 2 1980)..................................................................................................5 Executive Order No. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000) ..........................................................................5
iv

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 347
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517,1 in order to articulate the proper scope and application of the national origin nondiscrimination protections of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d through 2000d-7 (“Title VI”), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart C; and to set out the circumstances under which private plaintiffs can bring intentional discrimination claims under Title VI involving the failure by recipients of federal funds to provide language assistance services to limited English proficient (“LEP”) individuals.2 This Statement of Interest is submitted because the United States has a critical interest in ensuring that recipients of federal financial assistance, such as Defendants City of New York and the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), provide LEP individuals nondiscriminatory and meaningful access to police services, pursuant to Title VI’s statutory and regulatory prohibitions against national origin discrimination and in accordance with binding legal obligations as recipients of federal funds. In this Statement of Interest, the United States respectfully submits that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged intentional national origin discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss. Defendants have moved to dismiss, incorrectly arguing that the prohibition against national origin discrimination contained in Title VI does not include protections for individuals
1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 517, “[t]he Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice, may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a State, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.” 2 The nondiscrimination provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Safe Streets Act”) prohibits national origin discrimination by recipients of Department of Justice federal funds in the same manner as Title VI. 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(1). Thus, the analysis of the standard for intentional national origin discrimination presented in this Statement of Interest applies to the Safe Streets Act as well.

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 348
who are subject to discrimination based on their limited English proficiency. To the contrary, as set forth below, longstanding Executive agency regulations interpreting Title VI’s statutory commands and federal judicial precedent have clearly established that national origin discrimination under Title VI includes language-based discrimination.
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this action are six victims of domestic violence and the Violence Intervention Program (“VIP”). According to the Second Amended Complaint, the six domestic violence victims are LEP, meaning that their primary language is not English and that they are limited in their ability to speak, read, write, and understand English. (ECF No. 33, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46, 74, 99, 122, 136, 161.) Plaintiff VIP is a non-profit organization that “aims to remedy and to prevent violence against women.” (Id. ¶ 186.) VIP provides a full range of services, including counseling, residential accommodations, and child care. (Id.) The majority of VIP’s clients are Spanish-speaking women with limited English proficiency. (Id. ¶ 187.) Plaintiffs allege that the NYPD and its staff refuse to communicate in Spanish with LEP Spanish-speaking victims of domestic violence through bilingual officers, qualified interpreters, and/or translated documents and information. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 93, 104, 128, 152.) They assert that the NYPD’s denial of interpreter services has deprived the individual plaintiffs of their “right to report crimes, to protect themselves from dangerous abusers, and to communicate effectively” with the NYPD. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs further allege that the NYPD has arrested LEP victims of domestic violence who could not communicate effectively with the police, relying instead on the reports of English proficient abusers. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs claim that the NYPD even ridicules
2

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 349
and mistreats LEP individuals who request interpreter services and demeans them for their lack of English proficiency.3 (Id.)
Plaintiffs further assert that the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) placed the NYPD on notice of its obligations to provide meaningful access to police programs and activities (see id. ¶¶ 39, 42), but that the NYPD routinely failed to provide language assistance services and has denied LEP individuals meaningful access and the ability to effectively communicate and participate in NYPD programs and activities. (See id. ¶¶ 42-44.) These actions and inactions, Plaintiffs allege, constitute intentional national origin discrimination in violation of Title VI and the Safe Streets Act. (See id. ¶¶ 194-203.)
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Title VI and Safe Streets Act claims. In their motion, Defendants contend that the alleged remarks and behavior, and indeed, intentional discrimination against LEP individuals by recipients of federal funds, do not constitute national origin discrimination. (See Mem. of Law in Support of Defendants’ Mot. to Dismiss the Second Am. Compl. (“Defs. Mem.”) at 1, 8.) As explained herein, that contention is mistaken.
ARGUMENT This Statement of Interest addresses two areas of Title VI interpretation raised by Defendants’ motion to dismiss. First, as discussed in Section A below, and contrary to Defendants’ contention, federal agency regulations interpreting the commands of Title VI, decades of consistent interpretation of those regulations by DOJ, and well-established judicial precedent make clear that language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin
3 In one alleged incident, a Plaintiff asked, in Spanish, if an NYPD officer spoke Spanish, to which the officer allegedly replied, “Oh si, si hablo espanol. Gol! Gol! Mexico! Vamos Mexico! Chicharito!” which means in English, “Oh yeah, I speak Spanish. Goal! Goal! Mexico! Let's go Mexico! (Chicharito is the name of a Mexican soccer player.)” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 88.) Another plaintiff alleges that when she asked an NYPD officer for someone who spoke Spanish, the officer responded by allegedly saying, in sum and substance, “This is America, you have to speak English.” (Id. ¶ 143.)
3

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 350
discrimination prohibited by Title VI. Second, as discussed in Section B, the NYPD, as a recipient of federal financial assistance, is not only legally required to provide language assistance services to such individuals, but has been on notice of this obligation and of the harm associated with failing to meet this obligation based on years of agency guidance, signed contractual assurances, and a DOJ compliance review. A. Language-Based Discrimination Constitutes a Form of
National Origin Discrimination Prohibited by Title VI 1. DOJ and Other Federal Agencies Have Consistently Found that Language-
Based Discrimination Constitutes a Form of National Origin Discrimination Title VI—which was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964— provides, “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. For over 40 years, federal agencies have interpreted Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination to require that LEP individuals have meaningful access to federally funded programs and activities. See, e.g., Dep’t of Health, Education, and Welfare, Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of National Origin, 35 Fed. Reg. 11,595 (July 18, 1970) (“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”). By executive order, DOJ is responsible for coordinating federal agency Title VI compliance and enforcement. See Executive Order No. 12250, Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws, 45 Fed. Reg. 72,995 (Nov. 2 1980) (“Exec. Order No. 12250”); Madison-Hughes v. Shalala, 80 F.3d 1121, 1124 (6th Cir. 1996); see also 28 C.F.R. § 42.401
4

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 351
(“In accord with the authority granted the Attorney General under Executive Order 12250, this subpart shall govern the respective obligations of federal agencies regarding enforcement of title VI.”); 28 C.F.R. § 50.3 (setting forth guidelines for federal agencies to follow in their enforcement of Title VI). In accordance with DOJ’s Title VI compliance and enforcement responsibilities, it has provided written policy guidance to federal agencies regarding “compliance standards” that recipients of federal funds must follow to ensure that the programs and activities they provide in English are accessible to LEP persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI and its implementing regulations. See DOJ Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency; Policy Guidance, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,123 (Aug. 16, 2000) (“Policy Guidance”) (“This policy directive concerning the enforcement of Title VI . . . is being issued pursuant to the authority granted by Executive Order No. 12250 and Department of Justice regulations.”); see also Executive Order No. 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000) (“Exec. Order No. 13166”) (directing that each federal agency’s guidance documents be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in the Policy Guidance to agencies).
DOJ’s Policy Guidance to federal agencies explains that Title VI and its regulations require recipients of federal funds to ensure that LEP individuals have “meaningful access” to the “information and services they provide.” 65 Fed. Reg. at 50,124. The Guidance further makes clear that a recipient is engaged in national origin discrimination when it fails to provide adequate language assistance services to an LEP individual. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50,124 (citing Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)); see also Nat’l Multi Housing Council v. Jackson, 539 F. Supp. 2d 425, 430 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Longstanding Justice Department regulations also expressly require
5

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 352
communication between funding recipients and program beneficiaries in languages other than English to ensure Title VI compliance.”).
Further, DOJ’s more specific guidance to recipients of funds from DOJ followed this general Policy Guidance, and served as a model for other federal agencies. See DOJ Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455 (June 18, 2002) (“DOJ LEP Guidance”). As made clear in that Guidance, language assistance services are meaningful when they are “provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial of the service, benefit, or right at issue or the imposition of an undue burden on or delay in important rights, benefits, or services to the LEP person.” DOJ LEP Guidance at 41,461; see also, Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 n. 21 (1985) (the Court refers to Lau in analogizing meaningful access to reasonable accommodations standards).
While meaningful access is always required, the level of language assistance services a recipient must provide is a fact-specific inquiry that includes consideration of the number and frequency of encounters with LEP individuals in the recipient’s service area, the importance and impact of the program or activity on the LEP individual, and the resources appropriate to the circumstances. See 65 Fed. Reg. 50,124; see also DOJ LEP Guidance at 41,459. For example, police officers are generally not required to bring a certified interpreter with them when going to a live crime scene. However, it is critical that where an incident involves LEP individuals, officers obtain qualified interpreters or bilingual staff as soon as practicable in order to conduct the investigation. See DOJ LEP Guidance at 41,467. The Policy Guidance and DOJ LEP Guidance also make clear that any claims of limited resources from large recipients or those serving a significant LEP population must be “well-substantiated” before those recipients are
6

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 353
permitted to limit language assistance services. 65 Fed. Reg. at 50,125; 67 Fed. Reg. at 41,460. Providing competent language assistance services may be as simple as utilizing a telephonic interpretation service or calling for backup from qualified bilingual staff, depending upon the circumstances. See DOJ LEP Guidance at 41,468. Importantly, the DOJ LEP Guidance provides that absent “exigent circumstances that are not reasonably foreseeable,” id. at 41,462, the failure to provide language assistance services to victims, witnesses, and potential perpetrators when investigating a domestic violence call constitutes national origin discrimination; police departments in jurisdictions with significant LEP communities must create and implement strategies to ensure that meaningful access is provided during these encounters. See id. at 41,468.
In accordance with DOJ’s unique role in interpreting Title VI, this Court should afford significant deference to DOJ’s interpretation that Title VI and its implementing regulations require “funding recipients to ensure LEP persons have meaningful access to the recipient’s programs,” and that a recipient’s failure to do so constitutes national origin discrimination. United States v. Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1080 (D. Ariz. 2012) (citing Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)); see also Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1337 (2013) (“When an agency interprets its own regulation, the Court, as a general rule, defers to it unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. Courts Have Consistently Found that Language-Based Discrimination Constitutes National Origin Discrimination
Consistent with the Executive Branch’s interpretation of Title VI and its implementing regulations, longstanding and well-established federal judicial precedent holds that Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination covers discrimination against individuals on
7

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 354
the basis of their limited English proficiency. Indeed, nearly forty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), that Title VI requires that LEP individuals be provided with meaningful access, and that a denial of such language assistance services constituted national origin discrimination.
In Lau, the Supreme Court concluded that Title VI and its implementing regulations required a federally-funded school district to ensure that LEP students were provided with meaningful access to the district’s educational programs. Lau, 414 U.S. 563. That case involved a group of approximately 1,800 public school students of Chinese origin who did not speak English, and to whom the school system provided the same services—an education solely in English—that it provided to students who spoke English. The Court held that by failing to provide LEP Chinese-speaking students meaningful access to educational programs, the school’s practices violated Title VI’s prohibition against national origin discrimination. Thus, the Court ruled that the municipal school system violated Title VI by failing to provide LEP students with bilingual education or other adequate instruction. Id. at 566-69. The Court observed, “[i]t seems obvious that the Chinese-speaking minority receive fewer benefits than the English-speaking majority from respondents’ school system which denies them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program—all earmarks of the discrimination banned by” Title VI and its implementing regulations. See id. at 568.
Consistent with the holding of Lau, lower federal courts have also determined that language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI. See, e.g., Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1079 (citing Lau, 414 U.S. at 568); see also Colwell v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that Lau concluded “discrimination against LEP individuals was discrimination based on
8

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 355
national origin in violation of Title VI”); Jones v. Gusman, ___ F. R. D. ___, 2013 WL 2458817, at *28 (E.D. La. June 6, 2013) (“[L]ongstanding case law, federal regulations and agency interpretation of those regulations hold language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination under Title VI.” (citing Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1079)); Aghazadeh v. Maine Med. Ctr., No. 98-421, 1999 WL 33117182, at *1 (D. Me. June 8, 1999) (denying hospital-defendant’s motion to dismiss where LEP patient-plaintiffs alleged that a failure to provide interpreter services violated Title VI); Mendoza v. Lavine, 412 F. Supp. 1105, 1110 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (denying motion to dismiss in case alleging that defendants’ failure to provide language assistance services violated Title VI); Pabon v. Levine, 70 F.R.D. 674, 677 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (summary judgment for defendants denied in case alleging that State officials failed to provide unemployment insurance information in Spanish, in violation of Title VI).
Although the Defendants rely upon Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), they implicitly concede—as they must—that Lau remains good law. See Defs. Mem. at 12-13. In Sandoval, the Supreme Court addressed whether a private right of action existed to enforce a DOJ regulation promulgated pursuant to Title VI. The Court concluded that the disparate impact regulation at issue, did not give rise to private rights of action. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 293. The Court, however, did not disturb Lau’s holding that Title VI requires recipients to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access, and that a denial of meaningful access constitutes national origin discrimination. See id., at 279. Indeed, it is “beyond dispute” that private plaintiffs may bring intentional national origin discrimination claims under Title VI. Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 280; Zeno v. Pine Plains Cent. School Dist., 702 F.3d 655, 664 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Title VI prohibits intentional violations of the statute.” (citing Sandoval)).
9

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 356
B. Failure by Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance to Comply with the Nondiscrimination Requirements of Title VI, Including the Requirement to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Individuals, May be Proof of an Intent to Discriminate Private plaintiffs bringing private lawsuits in federal court to challenge language-based
national origin discrimination must prove both that the recipient discriminated on the basis of national origin, and that the discrimination was intentional. Broadly, Plaintiffs here allege that institutional Defendants were on notice of their obligation to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals, which was a condition of receiving federal funds, and that their knowledge of the requirement and the impact of failing to comply with these obligations is proof of their discriminatory intent. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38-40, 42-44. Defendants, however, contend that Plaintiffs cannot bring such a claim. Further, in response to Plaintiffs’ assertions that DOJ LEP Guidance has put them on notice of such obligation, Defendants contend that the Guidance “has been rejected as authoritative on the subject of interpreters.” (Defs. Mem. at 13.) Defendants are wrong on both counts.
1. Plaintiffs Allege Intentional Discrimination Where, as here, private plaintiffs have adequately alleged that a recipient of federal funds intentionally failed to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access through the provision of language assistance services in violation of Title VI, courts have denied motions to dismiss their claims of intentional national origin discrimination. See, e.g., Cabrera v. Alvarez, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 1283445, at *5-*6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013); Almendares v. Palmer, 284 F. Supp. 2d 799, 808 (N.D. Ohio 2003). For example, in Cabrera, the district court found that Spanish-speaking LEP plaintiffs stated a plausible claim of intentional discrimination under Title VI because they alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that the federally-funded public housing authority’s repeated failures to provide language assistance services “were motivated by discriminatory intent.” Cabrera, 2013 WL 1283445, at *6. According to the plaintiffs in
10

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 357
Cabrera, an employee of the defendant public housing authority told a Spanish-speaking plaintiff to “learn English now that she is in America.” Id., at *1. Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had rebuffed their requests for interpreter assistance and translation services to complain about conditions in their rental units. Id., at *2. Based on these two allegations, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately stated a claim for intentional national origin discrimination under Title VI. Id., at *5-6 (citing, inter alia, 28 C.F.R. § 42.405(d)(1), which requires recipients of federal financial assistance to provide “information in appropriate languages”).
Further, in Almendares, the court found that plaintiffs, numerous LEP Spanish-speaking food stamp beneficiaries, sufficiently stated an intentional discrimination claim under Title VI where they alleged that State officials administering a State food stamp program purposefully discriminated against them by adopting a policy or practice of distributing program materials only in English, while knowing that Spanish-speaking applicants and beneficiaries could not understand the materials. 284 F. Supp. 2d at 807-08. The court found that even when a policy or practice is treated as facially neutral, that policy or practice can constitute evidence of intentional discrimination when established through evidence of “disparate impact, history of the state action, and foreseeability and knowledge of the discriminatory onus placed upon the complainants.” Id. at 806 (quoting South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 254 F. Supp. 2d 486, 497 (D.N.J. 2003)); see also Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 464-65 (1979) (holding that “actions having foreseeable and anticipated disparate impact are relevant evidence to prove the ultimate fact, forbidden purpose”); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977) (“Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into such
11

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 358
circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available. The impact of the official action whether it bears more heavily on one race than another may provide an important starting point.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Pryor v. NCAA, 288 F.3d 548, 565 (3d Cir. 2002) (allegations that facially-neutral rule, which established scholarship and athletic eligibility criteria for incoming student athletes, was adopted to reduce number of AfricanAmerican athletes who would become eligible for athletic scholarships and compete in intercollegiate athletics as freshman stated a claim for purposeful race discrimination in violation of Title VI).
Defendants also rely upon Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1983), for the proposition that discrimination based on an inability to speak English does not constitute national origin discrimination for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. (See Defs. Mem. at 11-12.) There are four reasons why Soberal-Perez is distinguishable from the instant matter.
First, in Soberal-Perez, the Hispanic plaintiffs sued the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) on the grounds that HHS allegedly violated Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause by not providing Social Security notices in Spanish. There, the court held that HHS was not a “recipient” of federal financial assistance for purposes of Title VI and, therefore, could not be sued for the alleged violation of Title VI.4 See Soberal-Perez, 717 F.2d at 38 (“[Title VI] was meant to cover only those situations where federal funding is given to a non-federal entity which, in turn, provides financial assistance to the ultimate beneficiary.”).
4 In Soberal-Perez, the court observed that regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under Title VI defined a “recipient” as “any State, political subdivision of any State, or instrumentality of any State or political subdivision, any public or private agency, institution, or organization, or other entity, or any individual, in any State, to whom Federal financial assistance is extended, directly or through another recipient, for any program, including any successor, assign, or transferee thereof, but such term does not include any ultimate beneficiary under any such program.” Soberal-Perez, 717 F.2d at 38-39 (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 80.13(i)).
12

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 359
Thus, unlike the plaintiffs in Cabrera and Almendares, who sued recipients of federal financial assistance, the plaintiffs in Soberal-Perez failed to allege discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance and had no standing to assert a Title VI claim.
Second, and more fundamentally, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an equal protection challenge to the federal agency-defendant’s failure to provide Spanish language assistance services where plaintiffs alleged merely that such failure had a “disproportionate impact” on Hispanics. See id. at 42. The court observed that the plaintiffs could not “allege in good faith, much less prove, any other evidence of discriminatory intent” other than a preference for English over all other languages. Id. In other words, the court found that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs did not sufficiently state an intentional discrimination claim. Here, unlike in Soberal-Perez, the individual Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of intentional national origin discrimination; provide specific examples of discriminatory actions and comments; and do not rely upon a disparate impact theory. For example, in one incident alleged, a Plaintiff asked, in Spanish, if an NYPD officer spoke Spanish, to which the officer allegedly replied, “Oh si, si hablo espanol. Gol! Gol! Mexico! Vamos Mexico! Chicharito!” which means in English, “Oh yeah, I speak Spanish. Goal! Goal! Mexico! Let's go Mexico! (Chicharito is the name of a Mexican soccer player.)” (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 88.) Another plaintiff alleges that when she asked an NYPD officer for someone who spoke Spanish, the officer responded by allegedly saying, in sum and substance, “[t]his is America, you have to speak English.” (Id. ¶ 143.)
Third, since Soberal-Perez was decided, courts have determined that statistical evidence of discriminatory impact on a particular race or national origin is a key indicator of intent, when combined with other factors. See The Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 702-05 (9th Cir. 2009) (Title VI and Equal Protection case finding that
13

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 19 of 33 PageID #: 360
statistical evidence was sufficient to create an inference of intent where race-neutral precondition to receiving municipal services served to exclude Latino neighborhoods). Notice to a recipient of the requirement to provide meaningful access and the impact and harm associated with failing to do so, combined with the impact, constitutes a prima facie case of intentional national origin discrimination. See Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267; Almendares, 284 F. Supp. 2d at 806.
The Soberal-Perez plaintiffs, unlike the plaintiffs in the instant case, could not allege that the defendant had been on notice of the civil rights requirement to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals, nor of the impact of a failure to do so. As discussed below, the NYPD is obligated under Title VI—as a recipient of federal financial assistance—to provide LEP individuals meaningful access to its programs and activities. Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations of a refusal by the NYPD to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals under these circumstances plausibly alleges an intentional discrimination claim.
Finally, over three decades have passed since Soberal-Perez and, as discussed above, during that time, both the Executive and Judicial Branches have repeatedly recognized the critical importance of providing LEP individuals with meaningful access to federally funded programs and activities. See, e.g., DOJ LEP Guidance, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455; Colwell, 558 F.3d at 1116-17; Gusman, 2013 WL 2458817, at *28; Cabrera, 2013 WL 1283445, at *5-*6; Maricopa Cnty., 915 F. Supp. 2d at 1079; Almendares, 284 F. Supp. 2d at 808; Aghazadeh, 1999 WL 33117182, at *1. It is unsurprising, then, that both the Executive and Judicial Branches have separately concluded that language-based discrimination constitutes a form of national origin discrimination prohibited by Title VI. See id. This Court should reach the same legal conclusion.
14

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 20 of 33 PageID #: 361
2. Recipients of Federal Funds are on Notice of Their Title VI Obligation to Provide Meaningful Access to LEP Individuals
As noted above, a plaintiff can make out a case of Title VI intentional national origin discrimination where the plaintiff can show that a recipient was on notice of its obligations to ensure meaningful access and provide language assistance services and failed to act on those obligations. There can be no question that NYPD had such notice.
Even before an entity receives federal financial assistance from a federal agency, it is on notice of the obligations that attach to its receipt of funds, including its Title VI obligation to take reasonable steps to provide LEP individuals meaningful access to its programs and activities.5 Thereafter, through guidance, technical assistance, contractual assurances, compliance reviews, and when applicable, enforcement actions, recipients of federal funds are repeatedly and clearly notified of Title VI’s obligation to provide language assistance services when encountering LEP individuals.
For example, with respect to the Title VI language access obligations of a police department that receives federal financial assistance from DOJ, the DOJ LEP Guidance provides, inter alia, that “when the victim of domestic violence speaks only Spanish and the perpetrator speaks English, the officers have no way to speak with the victim so they only get the perpetrator’s side of the story. The failure to communicate effectively with the victim results in further abuse and failure to charge the batterer.” 67 Fed. Reg. at 41,468; see also id. at 41,462
5 See, e.g., Office of Justice Programs, Sample Award Letter, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/financialguide/PDFs/award.pdf (stating, “In accordance with Department of Justice Guidance pertaining to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, recipients of Federal financial assistance must take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities for persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). For more information on the civil rights responsibilities that recipients have in providing language services to LEP individuals, please see the website at: http://www.lep.gov.”).
15

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 21 of 33 PageID #: 362
(“[W]hen police officers respond to a domestic violence call . . . use of family members or
neighbors to interpret for the alleged victim, perpetrator, or witnesses may raise serious issues of
competency, confidentiality, and conflict of interest and is thus inappropriate.”). DOJ enforces
the Title VI meaningful access requirement against law enforcement entities and other
recipients.6
Further, as a condition to the award of federal financial assistance, recipients must enter
into a written contract assuring their compliance with Title VI and agreeing to comply with the
requirements imposed by the agency awarding the funds. See 28 C.F.R. § 42.105 (requiring
assurances);7 see also Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 186 (2002) (observing that Title VI
6 DOJ has conducted investigations of law enforcement authorities and other recipients who have failed to provide LEP individuals with meaningful access to programs and activities. See, e.g., DOJ Letter of Finding re: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”), dated Dec. 15, 2011, at 9, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/mcso_findletter_12-15-11.pdf (DOJ found MCSO violated Title VI by failing to provide language assistance services to Latino LEP inmates in MCSO jails; for example, one Latino LEP inmate reported a detention officer refused to accept a tank order (request form) written in Spanish and said: “This is America. You have to fill [your tank order] out in English.”); DOJ Letter of Finding re East Haven Police Department (“EHPD”), dated Dec. 19, 2011, at 16, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/easthaven_findletter_12-19-11.pdf (DOJ found EHPD “made scant efforts to provide Spanish language assistance” and “failed to utilize language line” to communicate with LEP individuals officers encountered, and the failure to provide language assistance services in Spanish violated Title VI and “was evidence of intentional bias.”); DOJ Letter of Finding and Report of Findings re: Investigation of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (“NC AOC”), dated Mar. 8, 2012, Letter at 1, Report at 10, available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/TitleVI/030812_DOJ_Letter_to_NC_AOC.pdf (DOJ found NC AOC violated Title VI by failing to provide LEP individuals meaningful access to criminal and civil court proceedings and practices that included permitting assistant district attorneys to interpret for LEP criminal defendants.). The Court may take judicial notice of these and other documents referenced herein that are matters of public record. See Blue Tree Hotel Inv. (Can.), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir. 2004); Vasquez v. City of New York, No. 99-CV-4606, 2000 WL 869492, at *1 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2000) (Chin, J.).
7 Similarly, executive agencies require applicants for federal financial assistance to assure that they will comply with Title VI and with all requirements imposed pursuant to the executive regulations issued under Title VI. See 7 C.F.R. § 15.4 (Department of Agriculture); 15 C.F.R. § 8.5 (Department of Commerce); 32 CFR § 300.6 (Department of Defense); 34 C.F.R. § 100.4 (Department of Education); 10 C.F.R. § 1040.4 (Department of Energy); 45 C.F.R. § 80.4 (Department of Health and Human Services); 6 C.F.R. § 17.115 (Department of Homeland Security); 24 C.F.R. § 1.5 (Department of Housing and Urban Development); 43 C.F.R. § 17.4 (Department of Interior); 29 C.F.R. § 31.6 (Department of Labor);
16

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 22 of 33 PageID #: 363
invokes Congress’s power under the Spending Clause and that Title VI has been characterized by the Supreme Court as contractual in nature: recipients of federal funcs agree to comply with federally imposed conditions. (citations omitted)); Lau, 414 U.S. at 569 (“The Federal Government has power to fix the terms on which its money allotments . . . shall be disbursed.” (citation omitted)). Recipients of federal funds are obligated to perform the conditions of that contract, thus creating an inherent right on the part of the United States to seek enforcement of the recipient’s contractual obligations. See Barnes, 536 U.S. at 189; U.S. Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597, 605-606 (1986) (observing that a recipient’s acceptance of federal financial assistance “triggers coverage under the nondiscrimination provision[s]” of Title VI); see also Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of New York, 463 U.S. 582, 633 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“When a court concludes that a recipient has breached its contract, it should enforce the broken promise by protecting the expectation that the recipient would not discriminate.”); Bryan v. Koch, 627 F.2d 612, 616 (2d Cir. 1980) (As a recipient of federal funds, New York City’s municipal hospital system “contractually bound itself” to follow Title VI regulations.). Here, the institutional Defendants are contractually obligated to comply with Title VI and its implementing regulations. 8
22 C.F.R. § 141.4 (Department of State); 49 C.F.R. § 21.7 (Department of Transportation); and 31 CFR § 51.59 (Department of Treasury). 8 See Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Standard Assurances, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/forms/std_assurances.pdf.
17

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 23 of 33 PageID #: 364
3. DOJ’s Compliance Review of NYPD’s Policies Made The NYPD Aware Of Continuing Problems In Interviewing LEP Witnesses and Victims
The City of New York and the NYPD receive millions of dollars in federal financial assistance from DOJ.9 On this basis alone, they are on notice of and must comply with the
nondiscrimination requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulations, as well as the terms
of DOJ contractual assurances.
Further, in 2010, DOJ conducted a compliance review focusing on whether the NYPD’s
language access policies comply with Title VI and its implementing regulations. In a letter dated
January 15, 2010, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs, Office for Civil Rights (“OJP”), informed
the NYPD that it had been selected for a compliance review of its policies and procedures that
address language assistance services for LEP individuals. On November 8, 2010, OJP issued a
compliance review report containing its findings along with recommendations to bring the NYPD policies into compliance with Title VI.10 The report advised NYPD to revise its
language-access policies, establish quality-control measures for staff interpreters, provide better training to its uniform and civilian staffs, recruit additional officers with foreign language
abilities, improve community relations, and translate vital documents into New York City’s most
commonly spoken foreign languages. After working with NYPD for nearly two years, OJP
9 See Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG Program) FY 2011 ($5,108,013), available at http://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:85/selector/awardDetail?awardNumber=2011-DJ-BX2927&fiscalYear=2011&applicationNumber=2011-H6318-NY-DJ&programOffice=BJA&po=All; JAG Program FY 2012 ($4,130,203.00), available at http://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:85/selector/awardDetail?awardNumber=2012-DJ-BX0658&fiscalYear=2012&applicationNumber=2012-H3296-NY-DJ&programOffice=BJA&po=All; JAG Program FY 2013 ($4,038,230.00), available at http://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:85/selector/awardDetail?awardNumber=2013-DJ-BX0379&fiscalYear=2013&applicationNumber=2013-H5722-NY-DJ&programOffice=BJA&po=All. 10 DOJ Compliance Review of NYPD, dated Nov. 8, 2010, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/ocr/pdfs/nypdcompliancereport.pdf.
18

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 24 of 33 PageID #: 365
administratively closed its compliance review in a letter dated July 19, 2012.11 See Appendix to Statement of Interest, Letter from OJP, dated July 19, 2012 (“OJP July 19, 2012 Letter”).
However, even as OJP closed its compliance review of NYPD policies and procedures, in its July 19, 2012 letter, OJP raised continuing concerns about the efficacy and quality of the NYPD officer training regarding the provision of interpreter services for LEP individuals. See OJP July 19, 2012 Letter at 4. The letter explained that on March 6, 2012, OJP staff observed two training sessions at Precinct No. 109 in Flushing, Queens to evaluate the effectiveness of the language access training to be provided more broadly to NYPD personnel. Id. OJP alerted NYPD that during both training sessions “the trainer noted, without sufficient explanation, that personnel in interacting with LEP individuals, should, as a first resort, rely on individuals who have no certified foreign-language ability.” Id. OJP explained in its letter that this instruction from the trainer was inconsistent with their understanding of NYPD policy and that “reliance on individuals whose foreign-language abilities may be unreliable is the exception to the general rule that personnel should use unequivocally qualified language assistance to communicate with LEP persons.”12 Id. Accordingly, the NYPD is well aware of its legal obligation to provide language assistance services to LEP individuals, particularly to witnesses and victims of crime.
11 Title VI authorizes DOJ to open a new compliance review or investigation if it receives a new complaint or otherwise determines that such action is necessary. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 42, subpart C. 12 All of the alleged incidents in the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended complaint occurred after OJP’s November 8, 2010 compliance review report, and most of the alleged incidents occurred after the July 19, 2012 letter regarding the NYPD training.
19

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 25 of 33 PageID #: 366
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should decline to adopt the NYPD’s incorrect contention that the prohibition against national origin discrimination contained in Title VI does not include protections for LEP individuals. As discussed above, longstanding executive agency regulations and judicial precedent have clearly established that national origin discrimination under Title VI includes language-based discrimination. Moreover, as recipients of federal financial assistance, the City of New York and NYPD are bound by and subject to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI and the Title VI regulations, as well as contractual assurances, to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals. Plaintiffs’ complaint adequately states a claim of intentional discrimination under Title VI. The complaint contains numerous examples of discriminatory comments, acts and omissions. The complaint also alleges that the NYPD was on notice that Title VI requires recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals and was aware of the harm associated with the failures to comply with those requirements and provide language assistance services. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied. Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 22, 2013
Respectfully submitted, LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 By: /s/ electronically signed AMEET B. KABRAWALA Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6001
20

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 26 of 33 PageID #: 367
JOCELYN SAMUELS Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice CHRISTINE STONEMAN Special Legal Counsel Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice MICHAEL MULÉ Attorney Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice LAURA COON Special Counsel Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice JENNIFER MONDINO Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice Attorneys for the United States of America
21

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 27 of 33 PageID #: 368
APPENDIX

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Fiule.ds.1D1e/2p2a/r1tm3 enPtaogfeJ2u8stiocfe33 PageID #: 369
Office of Justice Programs Office for Civil Rights

July 19,2012

Washington. D.C. 20531

VIA CERTIFIED AND ELECTRONIC MAIL

Raymond W. Kelly Police Commissioner New York City Police Department One Police Plaza Room 1400 New York, NY 10038

Re: Compliance Review of New York City Police Dep't (10-0CR-0015)

Dear Commissioner Kelly:

In January 2010, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice notified you that the OCR selected the New York City Police Department (NYPD or Department), as a recipient of federal financial assistance, for a civil rights compliance review in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Safe Streets Act), and their implementing regulations. The compliance review focused on the NYPD's provision of services to limited English proficient (LEP) individuals. In connection with its preparation of a Compliance Review Report (Report), the OCR conducted onsite visits on April 13-23 and June 8, 2010.

On November 8, 2010, the OCR issued its Report to the NYPD, l which contained forty-six recommendations to ensure the Department's compliance with Title VI and the Safe Streets Act, in accordance with the DOl's published guidance docurnent.2 After the OCR issued its Report, the NYPD proactively implemented various corrective action items in response to the OCR's recommendations. As part of these remedial measures, the Department refined its language access training for sworn and civilian members of the service. On March 6, 2012, the OCR conducted a third site visit to observe the language access training provided by the Department to personnel at Precinct No. 109 in Flushing, Queens. Below, the OCR (1) describes several of the NYPD's significant responses to the OCR's Report recommendations, (2) provides feedback on the language access training it recently observed, and (3) concludes that the NYPD is in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the DOJ Guidance.

1 See New York City Police Dep't, No. 10-OCR-00 15, Office for Civ. Rts. Compi. Rev. Rep. (U.S. Dep't of Justice Nov. 8, 2010), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/ocr/pdfs/nypdcompliancereport.pdf.
2 Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons, 67 Fed. Reg. 41,455 (June 18,2002) (DOl Guidance).

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 29 of 33 PageID #: 370
Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner New York City Police Dep't July 19,2012 Page 2 of6
I. Notable Responses to Compliance Review Report Recommendations
The OCR commends the NYPD for taking prompt and substantial steps to respond to the recommendations contained in the OCR's Report and to strengthen its provision of language services to LEP communities throughout New York City. We especially appreciate the Department's diligence in promulgating various policies and procedures regarding language access. Of particular note, since the issuance of the OCR's Report, the NYPD implemented orders that accomplish the following:
• explain the processes for securing interpretation and translation assistance in the field, at Department facilities, and within the Internal Affairs Bureau;3
• provide members of the service with citywide access to a telephonic interpretation service·,4
• ensure that language assistance resources are available at point-of-service 10cations;5
• require documentation that a member of the service used an interpreter, or that an interpreter will be required in the future, in connection with the investigation of certain complaints;6
• require documentation by a member of the service of the need for an interpreter in communicating with a prisoner or a parent or guardian of a juvenile;7
3 Interim Order No. 31, Revision to Patrol Guide 212-90, "Volunteer Language Program/Language Line" (Aug. 26, 2011); Interim Order No. 13, Translation of Department Written Material (Apr. 1,2011); Procedure No. 620-40, Revision No. 11-02, Internal Affairs Bureau Guide, Guidelines for Obtaining Translators and Translation Services for lAB Investigators (Mar. 22, 20 11).
4 Operations Order No.9, Citywide Expansion of Pilot Program -- Telephonic Interpretation Service (Feb. 10, 2012).
5 Interim Order No. 32, Revision to Patrol Guide 202-11, "Operations Coordinator," at 1 (Aug. 26, 2011).
6 1d. at 1-2 (revising Patrol Guide Procedure Nos. 207-07 ("Preliminary Investigation of Complaints (Other Than Vice Related or Narcotics Complaints)"), 207-30 ("Civilian Complaints - Witness Statements"), 207-31 ("Processing Civilian Complaints")).
7 Id. at 3, 5 (revising Patrol Guide Procedure Nos. 208-03 ("Arrests - General Processing"), 208-09 ("Rights of Persons Taken Into Custody"), 208-15 ("Arrests Report Preparation at Stationhouse"), 210-01 ("Prisoners General Procedure")).

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 30 of 33 PageID #: 371
Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner New York City Police Dep't July 19,2012 Page 3 of6
• describe the protocol for providing language assistance in connection with family offense and domestic violence matters;8
• explain the protocol for handling Domestic Incident Reports;9 and
• describe the benefits under its Career Program of being a qualified interpreter. 10
In addition, the NYPD issued a revised Language Access Plan on June 14,2012, which provides helpful guidance to the public about the Department's various efforts to provide language assistance services to LEP individuals.
II. OCR Training Observations
In response to the OCR's Report, the NYPD revised its training curriculum to provide additional detailed guidance to sworn and civilian personnel on communicating effectively with LEP individuals. According to the Department's thirteen·page lesson plan for this subject, after receiving the training, personnel should be able to do the following:
(1) identify an individual's need for oral language assistance;
(2) evaluate, when providing language services to an LEP person, whether to rely on (a) a bilingual member of the service, (b) a bilingual member of the public, (c) the NYPD's telephonic interpretation service, or Cd) the Department's Language Initiative Program;
(3) access (a) the telephonic interpretation service and (b) the Language Initiative Program;
(4) record the identity of any interpreter who provides assistance;
(5) understand the mechanics of working with an interpreter; and
(6) be aware of (a) the NYPD's Community Affairs Bureau's Immigrant Outreach Unit and (b) the information that is available to LEP persons on the Department's Web site.
8 ld. at 4 (revising Interim Order No. 34, series 20 I0 ("Revision to Patrol Guide 208-36, 'Family OffenseslDomestic Violence '''»).
9 Id. at 5 (revising Patrol Guide Procedure No. 208-70 ("Processing of New York State Domestic Incident Reports in the Domestic Violence Database").
10 Interim Order No. 17, Revision to Patrol Guide 205-15, "Police Officer's Career Program" (May 2, 2011).

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 31 of 33 PageID #: 372
Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner New York City Police Dep't July 19,2012 Page 4 of6
The lesson plan allots twenty minutes to achieve these broad learning objectives and provides a clear outline for an instructor to follow in discussing the material to be covered.
To evaluate the effectiveness of this training, on March 6,2012, the OCR observed two training sessions at Precinct No.1 09 in Flushing, Queens; the first session involved sworn members of the service while the second session included sworn and civilian personnel. In both training sessions, the instructor effectively conveyed information about several topics. He provided helpful information about identifying an individual's need for language assistance and distributed materials to personnel on identifying an LEP individual's language. The trainer also explained the protocols for accessing the Department's telephonic interpretation service and Language Initiative Program and noted the importance of documenting basic information about an interpreter who provides language assistance to facilitate a particular communication. In addition, the instructor emphasized the importance of not relying on an LEP person's family members for language assistance.
While the instructor provided useful information to participants during these training sessions, the NYPD could strengthen several critical areas of its language access training.!! Based on the OCR's onsite visit, we make three general observations that likely warrant further review by the Department as it continues to monitor and develop this aspect of its training program.
It During both training sessions, the trainer noted, without sufficient explanation, that personnel, in interacting with LEP individuals, should, as a first resort, rely on individuals who have no certified foreign-language ability. Under Department policy, however, and as reflected in the lesson plan, personnel should carefully consider several factors before relying on language assistance from a member of the public or noncertified members of the service. Moreover, there are multiple settings in which reliance on such persons for language assistance would not be appropriate. Thus, within this framework, reliance on individuals whose foreign-language abilities may be unreliable is the exception to the general rule that personnel should use unequivocally qualified language assistance to communicate with LEP persons. In both training sessions, however, the instructor exalted the exception over the rule. The NYPD may wish to review more carefully the ability of training sergeants to describe the Department's language access policies, including the importance of relying on qualified telephonic or in-person interpreters for certain interactions.
• During both training sessions, the trainer provided insufficient information to satisfy several of the performance objectives of the training, as identified by the Department's lesson plan. He did not convey any information to participants about certain topics, such as the role of the Immigrant Outreach Unit or the availability of online materials; he also
11 While the OCR limited its onsite training observations to two training sessions at Precinct No.1 09, the NYPD should carefully consider whether our suggestions for improvement at this precinct can be applied to the provision of language access training at the Department's other point-of-service locations.

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 32 of 33 PageID #: 373
Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner New York City Police Dep't July 19, 2012 Page 5 of6
covered in a cursory fashion other areas, such as the process for identifying whether bilingual individuals are available to provide language assistance and the mechanics of working with an interpreter. The instructor also did not reference or distribute Interim Order No. 31, Patrol Guide 212-90, even though the lesson plan designates that order as student material. As part of an enhanced review of its training process, the OCR encourages the NYPD to evaluate whether training sergeants sufficiently address all critical aspects of its language access curriculum. To ensure that personnel receive sufficient information on each learning objective, the Department may wish to consider covering the curriculum during two or more successive training sessions.
• The instructor did not consistently conduct the two training sessions, even though they covered the same subject matter as described in the Department's lesson plan and occurred mere hours apart from one another at the same location. During the first session, the training lasted approximately ten minutes and provided little in-depth information about any topic. In contrast, the second session consisted of a twenty-minute presentation that provided more detail about various language access issues and elicited more questions from the participants. Given these markedly contrasting approaches, the NYPD should monitor more carefully its training sessions to ensure that training sergeants, in discussing language access issues, consistently satisfy the objective minimum standards contemplated by the lesson plan. 12 As part of its ongoing review of this training program, it may also be helpful for the Department to attempt to measure the effectiveness of this curriculum in providing sufficient information to personnel and in improving interactions with LEP individuals.
III. Conclusion
While the OCR encourages the NYPD to make further refinements to its language access training program for sworn and civilian personnel, we recognize that the Department has made significant progress in enhancing its ability to interact effectively with LEP persons. The OCR has thoroughly reviewed the NYPD's responses to the Report and concludes that the Department is in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the DOJ Guidance. Given the Department's implementation of various appropriate language access measures, including those discussed above, at this time we will administratively close this matter.
I would like to thank the NYPD for its continued cooperation during the course of the compliance review and the professional courtesies that Department personnel extended to the OCR Investigative Team, George Mazza, Christopher Zubowicz, and Joseph Swiderski, during the compliance review. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact
12 The OCR recognizes that the second training, unlike the first session, included civilian personnel and did not occur between work shifts. Based on the NYPD's language access lesson plan, these distinctions do not appear to be material ones. The lesson plan is designed for all members of the service and applies the same performance objectives to sworn and civilian personnel, regardless of whether they participate in the training at the beginning of their shift or at some later point in their shift assignment.

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 41 Filed 11/22/13 Page 33 of 33 PageID #: 374 Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner New York City Police Dep't July 19,2012 Page 6 of6
Mr. Zubowicz at 202.305.9012. He remains available to provide the NYPD with assistance as you continue to take steps to provide the most effective services to LEP communities throughout New York City.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Alston Director
Enclosure
cc: John Donohue, Deputy Chief, Office of Management Analysis and Planning (Via Certified and Electronic Mail)

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: 526

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------x YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ, GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA, SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ, BHISHMA YOGI, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM,

Plaintiffs,

13 CV 00076 (MKB) (RER)

-against-

PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, RAYMOND W. KELLY, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his individual and official capacities, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENZO TRADOLSE, in his individual capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FURDA, in his individual capacity, OFFICER SWEETING, in his individual capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES #1 THROUGH #24 in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiffs YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA,
LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ,
GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA, SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE
RUIZ, BHISHMA YOGI, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI and the VIOLENCE
INTERVENTION PROGRAM, respectfully allege as follows:

1

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 61 PageID #: 527

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1.

This civil rights action, brought on behalf of thirteen limited English

proficient (“LEP”) New Yorkers and the Violence Intervention Program (“VIP”), an

organization that serves LEP domestic violence victims, challenges the New York City Police

Department’s (“NYPD”) discriminatory practice of denying interpreters to LEP individuals,

which deprives them of access to NYPD services. This practice is in stark contrast to the

NYPD’s stated policy that requires NYPD officers and other employees “to provide free

language assistance” to LEP individuals.

2.

More than four and a half years after Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued New

York City’s Executive Order 120 (“EO 120”), which requires city agencies to provide

interpretation services to LEP individuals; nearly four years after the NYPD first implemented

its NYPD Language Access Plan (“LAP Plan”); and more than two years after a November 2010

United States Department of Justice compliance review found the NYPD “not fully in

compliance” with the requirements of federal law, including Title VI and the Safe Streets Act,

regarding their provision of language services to LEP New Yorkers, the NYPD continues to

discriminate against LEP crime victims, victims of domestic violence and others who have

difficulty communicating in English.

3.

The NYPD’s denial of interpreter services has deprived Plaintiffs of their

right to report crimes, to protect themselves from dangerous abusers, and to communicate

effectively with the police in a wide range of circumstances.

4.

Not only does the NYPD fail to provide language assistance, it also degrades,

ridicules and otherwise mistreats LEP individuals who request interpreter services, actively

demeaning them for their lack of English proficiency. In some instances, LEP victims of

2

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 61 PageID #: 528

domestic violence are arrested because the NYPD relies solely on the reports of their English

proficient abusers.

5.

Defendants Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Police Commissioner

Raymond W. Kelly are responsible for overseeing and executing the NYPD’s policies. By

failing to adequately intervene or perform their professional duties, Defendants Mayor Michael

R. Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the City of New York, Police Officer

Vincenzo Tradolse, Police Officer Christopher Furda, Police Officer Sweeting and Police

Officers John/Jane Does #1-24, are responsible for harm caused to LEP individuals, including

the Plaintiffs, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, the

Equal Protection Clause and the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the New

York City Human Rights Law, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

6.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES is a resident of Brooklyn, New

York.

7.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO is a resident of Staten Island, New York.

8.

Plaintiff WENDY GARCIA is a resident of Queens, New York.

9.

Plaintiff LINA CARRION is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.

10.

Plaintiff SILVIA SORIANO is a resident of Staten Island, New York.

11.

Plaintiff MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ is a resident of Bronx, New York.

12.

Plaintiff ELENA JIMENEZ is a resident of Bronx, New York.

13.

Plaintiff GRACIELA SIMBANA is a resident of Staten Island, New York.

3

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 61 PageID #: 529

14.

Plaintiff OUMOU SYLLA is a resident of Bronx, New York.

15.

Plaintiff SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ is a resident of

Staten Island, New York.

16.

Plaintiff BHISHMA YOGI is a resident of Queens, New York.

17.

Plaintiff PEMA SHERPA is a resident of Queens, New York.

18.

Plaintiff XIAO FAN LI is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.

19.

Plaintiff VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM (“VIP”) is a nationally

recognized Latina organization dedicated to ending violence in the lives of women. VIP delivers

a full range of culturally competent services that enable women to become free of violence and

achieve their full potential. VIP has its main offices in New York, New York.

Defendants

20.

Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation duly

incorporated and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. It is authorized under

the laws of the State of New York to maintain a Police Department, the NYPD, which acts as its

agent in the area of law enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible.

21.

Defendant MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is and was, at all times

relevant herein, the Mayor of the City of New York with supervisory authority over all City

agencies, including the NYPD. He is sued in his official capacity.

22.

Defendant RAYMOND W. KELLY is and was, at all times relevant herein,

the Police Commissioner for the City of New York, with supervisory authority over all officers

and operations of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. Mr. Kelly is and was responsible

for hiring, screening, training, recruiting and managing all NYPD officers, including the

Defendants named herein. He is also responsible for the policies, practices and customs of the

4

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 5 of 61 PageID #: 530

NYPD. He is sued in his official capacity. The NYPD has its principal offices at One Police

Plaza, New York, 10038.

23.

Defendants VINCENZO TRADOLSE, CHRISTOPHER FURDA, OFFICER

SWEETING and JOHN/JANE DOES #1-24 (the "Individual Officer Defendants"), are, and/or

were, at all times relevant herein, officers, employees and agents of the NYPD. They are sued in

their individual capacities.

24.

Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, and the Individual Officer

Defendants have acted under color of state law in the course and scope of their duties as agents,

employees and officers of the City and/or the NYPD in engaging in the conduct described

herein. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have acted for and on behalf of the City and/or

the NYPD with the power and authority vested in them as officers, agents and employees of the

City and/or the NYPD.

JURISDICTION

25.

This court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1343(a), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and

civil rights.

26.

Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

27.

Plaintiffs further invoke this court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any and all related state law claims.

28.

This court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants as they are domiciled

in New York, among other bases of personal jurisdiction.

5

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 6 of 61 PageID #: 531

VENUE

29.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1391.

JURY DEMAND

30.

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their

claims.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY SCHEME

31.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: “No person in the United

States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be

denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving

federal financial assistance.” Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d). The

denial of meaningful access to services for LEP individuals is considered national origin

discrimination under Title VI.

32.

The Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d et seq., and its implementing

regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 42.201 et seq., prohibit discrimination, inter alia, on the

basis of national origin by programs funded in whole or in part from funds made available under

42 U.S.C. Chapter 46. 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(4).

33.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution guarantees equal rights and equal protection under the laws. Violations may be

remedied pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

34.

The Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution similarly

protects individuals from discrimination by the state or by any person acting under color of state

law. N.Y. Const., Art.1 § 11.

6

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 7 of 61 PageID #: 532

35.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from

unreasonable searches and seizures and the unreasonable use of excessive force by individuals

acting under color of state law. Violations may be remedied pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

36.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Violations may be remedied pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

37.

Article I, §9 of the New York State Constitution affords individuals the right to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

38.

The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), enacted in 1991,

prohibits discrimination based on national origin in public accommodations. NYC Code § 8-

107. The Law was extensively amended and strengthened in 2005 by the passage of the Local

Civil Rights Restoration Act, Local Law No. 85 of 2005.

39.

The NYCHRL provides:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the . . . national origin . . .of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, or, directly or indirectly, to make any declaration, publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place or provider shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of . . national origin . . . .

NYC Code§ 8-107(4)(a).

40.

Section 8-401 of the NYCHRL includes the following statement:

[t]he council finds . . .that the social and moral consequences of systemic discrimination are . . .injurious to the city in that systemic discrimination polarizes the city's communities, demoralizes its inhabitants and creates disrespect for the law,

7

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 8 of 61 PageID #: 533

thereby frustrating the city's efforts to foster mutual respect and tolerance among its inhabitants and to promote a safe and secure environment.

41.

NYCHRL § 8-130 provides that:

The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title have been so construed.

42.

New York State common law protects individuals from false arrest and false

imprisonment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

NYPD’s Language Access Policy and Practice

43.

Nearly 25 percent of New York City residents over the age of five are limited

English proficient (LEP), and require language assistance in order to access the services of the

NYPD; 1.2 million of them are Spanish-speaking individuals. LEP New Yorkers are

disproportionately foreign-born; among New York City residents over the age of five,

approximately fifty percent of foreign-born residents are LEP, in contrast to only 6.5 percent of

U.S.-born residents.

44.

On July 22, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg issued Executive Order 120 (“EO 120”),

“Citywide Policy on Language Access to Ensure the Effective Delivery of City Services,” which

requires each City agency that provides direct public services, including the NYPD, to “ensure

meaningful access to such services by taking reasonable steps to develop and implement agency-

specific language assistance plans regarding LEP persons.” The Order further requires that each

city agency designate a Language Access Coordinator, develop an appropriate language access 8

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 9 of 61 PageID #: 534

policy and implementation plan, and provide language services based on at least the top six

languages spoken by the population of the City.

45.

In April 2009, the NYPD published its Language Access Plan (the “Plan”).

The Plan requires NYPD officers responding to LEP individuals to provide interpretation

services as necessary either via the Operations Unit, using NYPD employees to interpret, or

through the use of a contracted interpreter via Language Line (a telephonic interpreting

company). The Plan states that NYPD’s policy is to “take reasonable steps to provide timely and

meaningful access for LEP persons to the services and benefits that the Department provides to

the degree practicable.” The Plan further requires that “[w]hen performing law enforcement

functions, members provide free language assistance to LEP individuals whom they encounter

when necessary or whenever an LEP person requests language assistance services.”

46.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) subsequently reviewed the

Plan as implemented by the NYPD and found that the NYPD failed to comply with federal law,

including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Safe Streets Act. The DOJ’s

compliance review consisted of an in-depth administrative analysis of the NYPD’s policies and

procedures with respect to LEP individuals. On November 8, 2010, the DOJ issued a 43-page

report, addressed to Defendant Raymond Kelly, outlining various problem areas and

shortcomings in the Plan and its implementation (the “Compliance Review”). On June 14, 2012,

the NYPD released a revised Plan (the “Revised Plan”).

47.

In January and February of 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the NYPD’s

legal department, by telephone and in writing, to discuss the language barriers faced by LEP

clients, specifically as they relate to domestic violence victims. The NYPD declined to meet with

counsel.

9

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 10 of 61 PageID #: 535

48.

On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel received a written response from the

NYPD outlining a new program to allow police officers to access telephonic interpreters from

any available telephone at any time of day. According to the letter, this program was initiated as

a pilot program in Patrol Borough Queens South in July of 2011 and rolled out citywide in

February 2012.

49.

As set forth below, despite its adoption of language access policies, and

despite being notified by the DOJ of deficiencies in its policies and practices, the NYPD has

continued to routinely deny LEP individuals access to police protection and to the broader legal

system. Indeed, NYPD personnel not only fail to provide language services, but on many

occasions actively mock and humiliate LEP individuals who request such services, and retaliate

against them for making such requests.

50.

Victims of domestic violence and other crimes, such as the Plaintiffs and

clients of Plaintiff Violence Intervention Program, are particularly vulnerable to NYPD’s

unlawful practices, which leave them unable to communicate with police in emergency

situations, to get the protection they need, to file police reports, and to obtain medical assistance.

51.

Moreover, as the experiences of the Plaintiffs illustrate, NYPD’s failure to

provide language assistance to LEP domestic violence complainants frequently results in their

wrongful arrest or with threats to arrest them, rather than the arrest of their abusers.

Plaintiff Yanahit Padilla Torres

52.

Yanahit Padilla Torres is a twenty-six year old Spanish-speaking woman from

Mexico.

53.

Ms. Padilla Torres speaks very limited English. She can understand some

10

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 11 of 61 PageID #: 536

words but has difficulty with even the most basic phrases.

54.

Ms. Padilla Torres lives in Brooklyn with her four year-old son Anthony.

55.

From 2007 until 2011, Ms. Padilla Torres lived with her boyfriend, Anthony

Rovira, who was physically and verbally abusive to her. Anthony set up video cameras in their

apartment to monitor her activities.

56.

On November 15, 2011, Mr. Rovira grabbed Ms. Padilla Torres by the feet

and pulled her off the bed and began beating her. Ms. Padilla Torres pleaded with him to stop

but he did not. She screamed for help and her son came into the room. Mr. Rovira stopped

hitting her and left the room.

57.

Ms. Padilla Torres then called 911. She asked for someone who spoke

Spanish and a Spanish-speaking operator came on the phone. Ms. Padilla Torres told the

operator that her boyfriend was beating her. She asked if they would send an officer who spoke

Spanish.

58.

Two police officers arrived shortly afterwards, including Officer Christopher

Furda.

59.

When the officers arrived, they approached Mr. Rovira, who is proficient in

English, and began to speak with him. They did not speak with Ms. Padilla Torres even though

she had called 911. Ms. Padilla Torres approached the officers while they were speaking with

Mr. Rovira and tried to explain what had happened in Spanish. Officer Furda said something to

the effect of, “we don’t speak Spanish.”

60.

The officers continued to speak with Mr. Rovira, ignoring Ms. Padilla Torres,

who continued to ask for help in Spanish.

61.

Ms. Padilla Torres saw Mr. Rovira and the two officers smoking cigarettes

11

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 12 of 61 PageID #: 537

together and talking and felt she was not going to get any help. At this point, she called 911

again and asked them to send a Spanish-speaking officer to the scene. Ms. Padilla Torres told the

operator that her boyfriend had beaten her and that she could not communicate with the officers

who responded. The operator told her she would send a Spanish-speaking officer.

62.

In a little while, another patrol car arrived with an officer who spoke Spanish.

Ms. Padilla Torres showed him the bruises on her arm and told him, in Spanish, that Mr. Rovira

had hit her.

63.

The Spanish-speaking officer said that Mr. Rovira also had marks on him, and

that if she wanted to make a police report they would both be arrested and a judge would

ultimately decide what happened. Ms. Padilla Torres indicated that she still wanted to make the

report.

64.

Officer Furda spoke with this officer, and then the Spanish-speaking officer

told Ms. Padilla Torres that he needed to leave but that the other officers would take her report.

65.

Ms. Padilla Torres’ cousin, Janette Hernandez, arrived at this time. Ms.

Padilla Torres had called her and asked her to come to watch her son.

66.

Ms. Padilla Torres tried to ask the officers for their names and identification

numbers in English, but they ignored her and refused to speak to her. They continued to speak

only to Mr. Rovira.

67.

Ms. Padilla Torres called 911 for a third time, this time asking for a police

officer with a higher rank because the officers who responded were not assisting her.

68.

Officer Furda told Ms. Hernandez in English that Ms. Padilla Torres should

make a report stating that Mr. Rovira had not hit her because it would be easier. Ms. Hernandez

responded that Ms. Padilla Torres would never do that since Mr. Rovira had beaten her.

12

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 13 of 61 PageID #: 538

69.

A third patrol car then arrived. Officer Furda called Ms. Padilla Torres over

to him, put her in handcuffs and put her in the patrol car. She saw that Mr. Rovira was also put

in a patrol car but without handcuffs.

70.

Shortly thereafter, around 3 a.m., Ms. Padilla Torres arrived at the 72nd

precinct in Brooklyn. She was taken to a cell. She was given a piece of paper but could not

understand what was written on it.

71.

Since the officers had not explained what was happening, Ms. Padilla Torres

was scared, worried about her son, and afraid that she was being incarcerated for a long time.

72.

Ms. Padilla Torres spent the night in the cell. In the morning, around 8:00

a.m., she was taken to another location where she was photographed. While a woman was

patting her down, she touched Ms. Padilla Torres’ arm where she had a bruise from the beating.

It was very painful for Ms. Padilla Torres and the woman looked at the bruise and suggested she

be taken to a hospital for treatment. This woman took Ms. Padilla Torres over to a Spanish-

speaking employee.

73.

This employee examined the bruises and called over a supervisor who looked

at the bruises and said something to the effect of, “this is domestic violence.” Ms. Padilla Torres

was then taken in an ambulance to Methodist Hospital by Officer Furda.

74.

Officer Furda handcuffed Ms. Padilla Torres to the bed in the hospital, and

remained with her the whole time she was in the hospital, even accompanying her to the

bathroom. After she received treatment for her injuries, Officer Furda brought her back to the

precinct. When they arrived at the precinct at approximately 6:00 p.m., she was allowed to go

home. Ms. Padilla Torres was not provided with any explanation of why she had been arrested

and was not told whether there were charges against her.

13

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 14 of 61 PageID #: 539

75.

Mr. Rovira obtained an order of protection against Ms. Padilla Torres in

Family Court based on her arrest on November 15th. As a result of the protective order against

her, Ms. Padilla Torres spent one month and nine days separated from her three year-old son.

76.

Mr. Rovira has approached Ms. Padilla Torres on many separate occasions

since she obtained an Order of Protection against him on November 21, 2011.

77.

Because of the treatment she suffered on the night of November 15th, Ms.

Padilla Torres is fearful of calling the police in the future. She does not have confidence that the

police would help her and is fearful that they would arrest her again.

78.

Within ninety days after the claims alleged by Ms. Padilla Torres arose, a

written notice of claim, sworn to by the claimant, was served upon the defendants by personal

delivery of the notice, in duplicate, to the Comptroller’s Officer at 1 Centre Street, New York,

New York.

79.

At least thirty days have elapsed since the service of the notice of claim, and

adjustment or payment of the claim has been neglected or refused.

80.

This action was commenced within one year and ninety days after the

happening of the events upon which the claims are based.

Plaintiff Arlet Macareno

81.

Arlet Macareno is a twenty-six year old woman from Mexico. Ms.

Macareno’s primary language is Spanish, and her ability to speak and understand English is very

limited.

82.

Ms. Macareno lives on Staten Island with her seven year-old son.

14

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 15 of 61 PageID #: 540

83.

Until recently, Ms. Macareno lived with her husband, Martin Cruz, in an

apartment on the second floor of a house owned by her brother-in-law. The downstairs

apartment was inhabited by various relatives of Mr. Cruz, including his twenty-two year-old

niece, Angela Guzman.

84.

Ms. Macareno’s husband has a history of violence, and as a result, Ms.

Macareno has been the victim of domestic violence on several occasions.

85.

One night in early August, 2012, in the presence of their son, Ms. Macareno’s

husband pushed her down a flight of stairs. As a result, she was seriously bruised, experienced

blurred vision and dizziness.

86.

When her niece, Ms. Angela Guzman, arrived home from work and saw Ms.

Macareno lying at the bottom of the stairs, she called 911.

87.

Shortly afterwards, four police officers and an ambulance arrived. Ms.

Macareno tried to explain to the officers what happened using her very limited English, but the

officers ignored her, electing instead to speak to her niece, who is proficient in English.

88.

Ms. Macareno tried to get the officers’ attention and asked for an interpreter

by saying “interprete” (interpreter). One officer, Vincenzo Tradolse, turned to her and said, in

English, words to the effect of, “I don’t care, go to sleep.” When Ms. Macareno persisted in

trying to explain that her husband had pushed her down the stairs, Officer Tradolse responded in

English, telling her to shut up and go to sleep.

89.

The officers continued to ignore Ms. Macareno’s repeated requests for an

interpreter, instead conducting a conversation with her niece.

15

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 16 of 61 PageID #: 541

90.

Officer Tradolse told Ms. Macareno, “callate la boca” (shut your mouth) and

again said he did not care each time she requested an interpreter. The other officers just stood

there watching and laughing.

91.

Officer Tradolse then said to her in sum and substance, “if you don’t callate la

boca, I will arrest you.” When Ms. Macarena continued to attempt to get Officer Tradolse’s

attention, he became angrier with her and then arrested Ms. Macareno.

92.

The officers took no action against Ms. Macareno’s husband, instead telling

him to go upstairs to sleep.

93.

The officers arrested Ms. Macareno, who was barefoot, and did not allow her

to retrieve her shoes from her apartment.

94.

Ms. Macareno was in a lot of pain from the fall and was very scared.

95.

There were two officers in the front of the police car, Officer Tradolse and

one other. There was another officer in the back next to Ms. Macareno. Since Officer Tradolse

had told her to “callate la boca,” Ms. Macareno then asked him, in Spanish, if he spoke Spanish.

He answered, “oh si, si hablo espanol. Gol! Gol! Mexico! Vamos Mexico! Chicharito!” This

means “oh, yeah, I speak Spanish, Goal! Goal! Mexico! Let’s go Mexico! (Chicharito is the

name of a Mexican soccer player.) The two officers in the front began to laugh and speak in

English, and Ms. Macareno could not understand what they were saying.

96.

When they arrived at the precinct at around 2 a.m., Officer Tradolse took Ms.

Macareno the long way around the car and made her walk through puddles in her bare feet.

Inside the precinct, the floor was wet and she slipped. The officers laughed at her. Ms.

Macareno asked for a lawyer or for someone who spoke Spanish to assist her.

16

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 17 of 61 PageID #: 542

97.

Finally, an officer who spoke Spanish came over to her. Ms. Macareno told

him that the other officers were making fun of her. This officer told her that it did not matter and

that it would be their word against hers. Ms. Macareno told him that her husband had pushed her

down the stairs and that she did not understand why she was arrested. He told her that she was

arrested for her lack of respect for the police. Ms. Macareno asked him why – was it because

she had asked for an interpreter? The officer then walked away.

98.

Ms. Macareno attempted to tell the officers and employees at the police

station that she was in pain from being pushed down the stairs. However, they failed to provide

Ms. Macareno with any medical treatment. Instead, they put her in a cell where she spent the

night.

99.

The next day, Ms. Macareno was taken to criminal court and charged with

Obstruction of Government Administration. Her brother paid for an attorney to represent her,

but the lawyer did not speak Spanish or provide her with an interpreter. Ms. Macareno

ultimately pled guilty to disorderly conduct.

100.

After she was released, Ms. Macareno and her cousin Nancy, went to the

120th precinct to file a report regarding the domestic violence incident. Her cousin, who speaks

English very well, filled out the form in English for Ms. Macareno. Although the officers were

aware that Ms. Macareno was a limited English proficient Spanish-speaker, no one at the

precinct told her that she could fill out the form in Spanish.

101.

A few days later, a detective called Ms. Macareno’s cousin Nancy and

informed her that Ms. Macareno would be given an Order of Protection and that she should

come to the precinct. Ms. Macareno went to the precinct, accompanied by her cousin. A

detective came to speak with her but instead of using an interpreter, he just spoke directly to her

17

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 18 of 61 PageID #: 543

cousin. Her cousin did not interpret the conversation but spoke directly with the officer. Ms.

Macareno did not understand what they were saying. Her cousin explained that she needed to go

to court to get the Order of Protection. Ms. Macareno said she felt she had been arrested for

asking for an interpreter. When her cousin told the detective this, the detective said that Ms.

Macareno had been charged with obstructing the investigation.

102.

On August 8, 2012, Ms. Macareno obtained a Temporary Order of Protection

against her husband, which is still in effect. A few days later, an officer accompanied Ms.

Macareno to her apartment to gather her belongings. The officer who accompanied her did not

speak Spanish and did not use an interpreter to speak with her. Her cousin accompanied her as

well. While they were at the apartment, her husband’s family, her cousin, and the officer had a

long argument in English. Ms. Macareno could not understand most of the conversation.

Finally her cousin explained to her that she had a right to stay in the apartment with her son and

that her husband had to leave.

103.

As she had nowhere else to go, Ms. Macareno decided to stay in the apartment

with her son. However, the first day she was in the apartment without her husband, he came to

the apartment and refused to leave. Ms. Macareno was scared and left. While she was gone, he

changed the locks and she could not re-enter.

104.

When Ms. Macareno went with her cousin to the precinct to complain that she

had been locked out of her home and that her husband had violated her Order of Protection, the

same English-speaking detective who had spoken to her the last time she was at the precinct was

there and again failed to use an interpreter to communicate with her. Again, her cousin spoke

directly to the detective to explain what happened and Ms. Macareno was not offered any way to

communicate with the police herself.

18

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 19 of 61 PageID #: 544

105.

As a result of the arrest and the treatment she received from the police, Ms.

Macareno feels traumatized. Ms. Macareno feels that if something happened to her, she would

not call the police or go to a precinct again because she fears the police and does not believe they

would protect her.

Plaintiff Wendy Garcia

106.

Wendy Garcia is a thirty-three year-old Spanish-speaker from Guatemala.

Her English is very limited.

107.

Ms. Garcia lives in Queens with her two sons, ages five and seven.

108.

In August, 2012, Ms. Garcia was in an intimate relationship with Alex

Moncada.

109.

On August 20, 2012, in Ms. Garcia’s apartment, Mr. Moncada pushed Ms.

Garcia and she fell to the floor. He also slammed a door on her, injuring her elbow and foot.

110.

Because Mr. Moncada had been violent with her before, and she did not want

the violence to escalate, Ms. Garcia called 911. Ms. Garcia requested a Spanish-speaking

operator and was able to explain in Spanish what had happened to her.

111.

Shortly afterward, four police officers arrived at Ms. Garcia’s building, none

of whom spoke Spanish. When Ms. Garcia requested a Spanish speaker, one of the officers told

her that there was nobody who could speak Spanish to her. The officer said something to the

effect of, “No Spanish, only English.” Ms. Garcia then struggled in English to tell the officer

that she would not be able to explain what had happened in English.

112.

The police officer then asked her in English, “you ok?” and Ms. Garcia

responded that she was not ok. Her elbow hurt from the fall and being crushed in the door, but

19

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 20 of 61 PageID #: 545

she was not sure of the word for elbow in English.

113.

The officer then instructed her to sit in a corner and went over to speak to Mr.

Moncada, who speaks English well.

114.

Concerned that she would not be able to tell her side of the story, Ms. Garcia

called her brother and requested that he translate for her.

115.

When she tried to hand the phone to the police officer and to explain that her

brother would translate, the police officer said, “no, no” and took the phone away. The officer

then threw the phone on the counter.

116.

Frustrated and scared, Ms. Garcia began to cry. One of the officers asked her

something to the effect of, “why are you crying?” Ms. Garcia again tried to communicate in

English that she needed to speak to someone in Spanish. The police officer said something to the

effect of, “no, only English.”

117.

One of the police officers gave Ms. Garcia a form to fill out with her personal

information and room to make a statement. No one told her she could write in Spanish, but she

did write a statement in Spanish. No one gave her a copy of this form.

118.

After speaking exclusively to Mr. Mocada, the officers wrote a report. Ms.

Garcia then heard the officers say something to Mr. Moncada about arresting her. Ms. Garcia

understood Mr. Moncada when he said that she should not be arrested because of her children.

119.

One of the officers asked Ms. Garcia if she had pushed Mr. Mocada, and she

tried to explain what had actually occurred, but was unable to do so due to her limited English.

The police officers then completed the report and gave a copy to Mr. Moncada but not to Ms.

Garcia.

120.

Ms. Garcia tried unsuccessfully to explain to the officers that she wanted Mr.

20

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 21 of 61 PageID #: 546

Moncada to leave because he did not reside there. However, the officers never asked Mr.

Moncada to leave and never asked Ms. Garcia whether she wanted him to leave.

121.

As the police officers were leaving, the one who had spoken to Ms. Garcia

previously again spoke to her in English. She understood him to say he was not going to arrest

her now but they would arrest her if she called 911 again.

122.

When the police left, Ms. Garcia felt deceived, frustrated and scared because

the police had threatened to arrest her. She felt that if Mr. Moncada became violent again, she

would not call the police. Instead of staying in her apartment, where Mr. Moncada remained,

Ms. Garcia woke up her son and took him to her mother’s house in Brooklyn.

123.

On or about August 22, 2012, Ms. Garcia went to the Family Justice Center in

Queens and spoke to a counselor from Sanctuary for Families about the events of August 20th.

The counselor called the 102nd Precinct for Ms. Garcia and found out that a report had been

filed against Ms. Garcia by Mr. Moncada on the night of August 20th alleging that she hit him.

124.

On or about August 23rd, Ms. Garcia went to the 102nd Precinct to get a copy

of the report. When she requested a Spanish interpreter, she was told she would have to wait.

125.

After waiting for ten minutes, she called a counselor from VIP, where she had

been seeking services as a domestic violence victim. Her counselor attempted to call the

precinct herself. The counselor then called the supervisors at Borough Patrol Queens South, and

requested an interpreter for Ms. Garcia.

126.

Rather than call a qualified interpreter, Ms. Garcia heard an officer at the

precinct ask around the precinct if anyone spoke Spanish. Ultimately, the officer found someone

with limited Spanish who assisted Ms. Garcia. Ms. Garcia said she wanted a copy of the police

report but was told that it was not in the system.

21

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 22 of 61 PageID #: 547

127.

The officers in the precinct gave Ms. Garcia the number of a police officer she

could call for further assistance in Spanish but she felt so awful from the whole experience that

she left the precinct without seeking further assistance.

128.

Ms. Garcia was frustrated and disheartened that the police repeatedly refused

to communicate with her in Spanish when she needed help. As a result of this incident, Ms.

Garcia distrusts the police and feels she cannot call upon them because she fears that she will be

arrested if she seeks assistance in the future.

Plaintiff Lina Carrion

129.

Lina Carrion is a thirty-nine year old woman who was born in Ecuador. Her

primary language is Spanish and she speaks very limited English.

130.

Ms. Carrion lives in Brooklyn, New York with her ten year-old daughter,

Jennifer Pizarro, and Ms. Carrion’s two brothers.

131.

On August 12, 2012, Ms. Carrion found out that her boyfriend had been

sexually abusing her daughter for a period of approximately three months. The next day, Ms.

Carrion brought Jennifer to Lutheran Hospital to be examined.

132.

Upon arrival at the hospital, Jennifer and Ms. Carrion were interviewed by an

English-speaking nurse through an interpreter, and then by a Spanish-speaking social worker.

133.

The social worker told Ms. Carrion that she was going to call the police

because of the sexual abuse. Ms. Carrion asked her to request a Spanish-speaking officer since

her English is very limited.

134.

When two English-speaking police officers arrived at the hospital, Ms.

Carrion again requested an officer who spoke Spanish. One of the officers made a phone call,

22

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 23 of 61 PageID #: 548

but when two additional officers arrived shortly thereafter, neither spoke any Spanish.

135.

Ms. Carrion again stated that she needed someone who could speak to her in

Spanish, but was told in sum and substance that an interpreter was not needed because her ten-

year-old daughter speaks English.

136.

Given the intimate nature of the situation and in light of her desire to

understand the officers’ communication with her young daughter, Ms. Carrion again requested

an officer who spoke Spanish.

137.

Despite Ms. Carrion’s repeated requests for a Spanish-speaking officer, the

officers proceeded to interview Jennifer in English for approximately thirty minutes. Ms.

Carrion could not understand what was being said. Despite Ms. Carrion’s repeated protests, the

interview continued without an interpreter.

138.

Ms. Carrion was extremely upset that she could not understand the

conversation. She complained to the social worker and asked her if she could interpret, but the

social worker was very busy and said she could not.

139.

After a period of time, two additional officers arrived who did not speak

Spanish. They helped finalize the police report and had Ms. Carrion’s daughter fill in a portion

in English.

140.

One of the officers asked Ms. Carrion to sign the report. Despite the fact that

she was unable to understand what the report said, Ms. Carrion signed it. Neither she nor her

daughter was given a copy of the report.

141.

The officers’ failure to provide Ms. Carrion with an interpreter or Spanish-

speaking officer prevented Ms. Carrion from being able to communicate what she knew about

the assaults on her daughter to the police officers, provide support to her young daughter during

23

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 24 of 61 PageID #: 549

a very sensitive time and to understand the steps the police were taking regarding the abuse.

142.

Ms. Carrion felt upset and frustrated, and felt that she was being discriminated

against by the police.

Plaintiff Silvia Soriano

143.

Sylvia Soriano is a thirty-four year old Spanish speaker from Mexico. Her

ability to communicate in and understand English is very limited.

144.

Ms. Soriano lives in Staten Island with her husband, Jose Velez, and three of

her four children, aged 2, 5, and 15.

145.

Ms. Soriano moved to Staten Island from the Bronx in December 2011. Since

relocating, her family has received repeated threats and been subjected to multiple acts of

violence by other residents of the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) project where

they live. She believes her family is a target of threats because they are Mexican.

146.

Ms. Soriano’s 18 year-old son, Jose Franco, relocated to Mexico after being

beaten up and threatened for being Mexican by residents in the NYCHA project where they live.

147.

In mid-August, 2012, Ms. Soriano was in a park near her home with her

husband and three children, when approximately fifteen teenagers approached a group of

children playing and made a circle around them. The teenagers hit and spat on the children, and

one of the teenagers repeatedly threw a basketball at Ms. Soriano’s five year-old. Ms. Soriano

called 911, explaining in Spanish what was occurring.

148.

The teenage perpetrators continued to taunt and threaten Ms. Soriano’s

children. When she attempted to protect her children, one of the teenagers took out a gun,

pointed it at her head, called her a “Fucking Mexican,” and instructed her to leave the area. Her

24

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 25 of 61 PageID #: 550

husband also heard one of the perpetrators say words to the effect of “this won’t end until you

leave.” They continued to taunt the Soriano family until Ms. Soriano requested that another

person in the park take a photograph of them, at which point they ran away. Before they left,

the teenager with the gun told Ms. Soriano’s daughter that her mother better “get out of his face”

or he would kill them.

149.

When the police did not respond after about fifteen minutes, Ms. Soriano’s

husband called 911 again to complain that they were in danger and the police had not arrived.

The responding officers, who did not speak Spanish or use interpreters to communicate with Ms.

Soriano and her husband, arrived after another ten minutes.

150.

Ms. Soriano struggled to tell them that she needed to speak with someone who

spoke Spanish. The officer responded to her request saying in sum and substance “this is

America, you have to speak English.” When Ms. Soriano’s daughter attempted to tell the

officers what happened, they instructed Ms. Soriano and her family to return to their home.

151.

Then Ms. Soriano became desperate, pointing to the cameras on the building

because she thought there would be recordings of the people who had assaulted her family. The

officers did not understand what she was trying to communicate and without attempting to

understand, began to laugh.

152.

Later that day and in the days that followed, the Sorianos were taunted and

threatened by the same teenagers.

153.

When Ms. Soriano went to the NYCHA office to request a transfer to another

housing project because of the threats, she was told that she needed to provide NYCHA with a

police report.

154.

NYCHA gave Ms. Soriano a crime report form, which she tried to fill out and

25

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 26 of 61 PageID #: 551

mailed to the 120th Precinct. A few days later, she went to the precinct to check on it. No one

spoke to her in Spanish and they refused her requests for an interpreter, stating in sum and

substance that no one at the precinct spoke Spanish.

155.

A police officer then offered to speak to Ms. Soriano’s daughter in English,

and told her that the computers were not working and that they needed to come back another

day. He handed her a form and told Ms. Soriano she could fill it out and mail it back.

156.

Ms. Soriano did send the form in but it was sent back to her with instructions

in English saying that she needed a complaint number and could get that number by calling the

precinct. 157.

On October 1, 2012, Ms. Soriano returned to the 120th Precinct with her

attorney. Her attorney requested an interpreter for Ms. Soriano in order to file a police report.

An officer told her attorney that no one was available who spoke Spanish, and instead asked the

attorney if she could interpret for Ms. Soriano. When her attorney refused, and pointed to the

sign regarding the provision of free interpreter services, the officer sighed and rolled his eyes.

After making Ms. Soriano and her attorney wait for approximately fifteen minutes, he eventually

found a Spanish-speaking officer who took Ms. Soriano’s complaint.

158.

On January 5, 2013, a neighbor in Ms. Soriano’s apartment building began

banging on the walls and door to Ms. Soriano’s apartment. When Ms. Soriano’s husband opened

the door, the man began insulting them in English and saying things to the effect of, “you

fucking Mexicans” and “fucking immigrants” and threatening them with violence. Ms.

Soriano’s fifteen year-old daughter called 911. After twenty-five minutes when no police

officers had arrived, she called again. When speaking with the 911 operator, Ms. Soriano’s

daughter requested that the police send a Spanish-speaking officer to her home because her

26

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 27 of 61 PageID #: 552

parents do not speak English well.

159.

Approximately five officers arrived at the home and none of them were able

to communicate with the Soriano family in Spanish. Ms. Soriano said to one officer, “yo no

hablo Ingles” (I don’t speak English). The officer responded something to the effect of “no

Spanish.”

160.

Ms. Soriano’s fifteen year-old daughter interpreted what the police were

saying for her parents. The police said that there was nothing they could do and that the family

should make a complaint with the NYCHA housing office. The officers did not offer to file a

police report for the family.

161.

Because they feared for their safety, on January 7, 2013, Ms. Soriano and her

husband returned to the 120th precinct to attempt to file a police report about the ongoing threats

from their neighbors. Ms. Soriano requested assistance in Spanish at the precinct and was told

that no one was there who could speak Spanish.

162.

Ms. Soriano’s husband attempted to communicate with the officers in the

precinct in very basic English. He tried to explain that the family was receiving ongoing threats

and harassment because they are Mexican. The officers did not take a police report. Ms.

Soriano’s husband felt he could not explain everything that he wanted to because he was not able

to speak to someone in Spanish.

163.

In early 2013, Ms. Soriano called 911 at approximately 2:00 a.m. when she

found her daughter’s boyfriend in her apartment without her permission. Ms. Soriano

subsequently sought an Order of Protection against him on behalf of her daughter because he is

twenty-four years old and her daughter is fifteen. Additionally, she fears for her daughter’s

safety with him.

27

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 28 of 61 PageID #: 553

164.

When the police responded to her call, Ms. Soriano could not communicate

the situation to them because they did not speak Spanish or offer her an interpreter. One of the

officers asked Ms. Soriano if she spoke English. When she answered no, the officer said

something to the effect of, “then there is nothing we can do.” The police officers began to laugh

and left the premises.

165.

The NYPD officers’ failure to provide Ms. Soriano and her husband with an

interpreter, both at their home and at the 120th precinct, deprived Ms. Soriano of access to police

protection. NYPD’s refusal to provide her with assistance from a Spanish-speaking officer or

interpreter also prevented her from being able to file reports about various threats against her and

her family, and impeded Ms. Soriano’s ability to transfer to a safer NYCHA project.

166.

As a result of her inability to file the appropriate reports, Ms. Soriano fears for

the lives and safety of her family, feels helpless, and feels she is being discriminated against

because of her national origin and because she is unable to speak English.

Plaintiff Maria Irma Henriquez

167.

Maria Irma Henriquez is a twenty-six year old woman who was born in El

Salvador.

168.

Ms. Henriquez has very limited English and also cannot read in English.

169.

Ms. Henriquez is the survivor of extreme domestic violence at the hands of

her former partner and the father of her son, Mr. Juan Guzman-Torres. Ms. Henriquez lived with

Mr. Guzman-Torres from 2007 until late 2009.

170.

Ms. Henriquez and Mr. Guzman-Torres have a child together, Eric Guzman,

who was born on February 3, 2008. Ms. Henriquez also has a child from a previous relationship,

28

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 29 of 61 PageID #: 554

Katerin Mejia Henriquez, who was born on January 30, 2003.

171.

After approximately one month of living together, Mr. Guzman-Torres began

to abuse Ms. Henriquez on a regular basis. He would also prohibit her from leaving the house by

taking her keys. Mr. Guzman-Torres was a habitual drinker and would become very violent

when inebriated.

172.

Ms. Henriquez suffered regular bruising and bleeding from the beatings. Mr.

Guzman-Torres would often punch her, pull her hair, hold a knife to her, and throw plates of

food at the walls. The abuse happened almost on a daily basis.

173.

Ms. Henriquez was also abused throughout her pregnancy with their son. On

many occasions, Mr. Guzman-Torres would beat her while she was pregnant and threaten to kill

the unborn fetus. Ms. Henriquez was fearful of leaving him and had no relatives or friends to

turn to because Mr. Guzman-Torres would not permit her to be in contact with anyone.

174.

One night in February 2008, when Eric was approximately one month old,

Mr. Guzman-Torres violently abused Ms. Henriquez and held a knife to her neck. When he fell

asleep later, she took her baby and climbed down the fire escape. Freezing and injured from the

beating, she called 911. Mr. Guzman-Torres was arrested.

175.

Ms. Henriquez later allowed Mr. Guzman-Torres to return home because she

was desperate. She had no way of supporting herself and no one else to turn to. The abuse

continued.

176.

During the next four years, Ms. Henriquez estimates that she called the police

approximately fifteen times as a result of the violence. Because of the severity of her head

injuries that resulted from the beatings, she has memory problems making it difficult to

remember many dates and details.

29

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 30 of 61 PageID #: 555

177.

When Ms. Henriquez would call the police after being abused, Mr. Guzman-

Torres would often leave the home. Sometimes police would respond, but on more than one

occasion, no one ever arrived.

178.

Usually Ms. Henriquez would speak in Spanish with the 911 operator, but

when the police would arrive, no one would communicate with her in Spanish or offer to get her

an interpreter. Because the police rarely were able to communicate with her, she often was not

able to file police reports when the police came to her home. The police would often resort to

attempting to communicate with her using hand signals and speaking in English.

179.

Ms. Henriquez was only able to file a Domestic Incident Report on

approximately two occasions, July 2, 2008 and July 29, 2008.

180.

On November 30, 2008, the violence had escalated and Ms. Henriquez was

living in fear of Mr. Guzman-Torres. One day she called 911 when Mr. Guzman-Torres was in

the home and the police came and arrested him. Ms. Henriquez does not remember any of the

police officers communicating with her in Spanish. As a result of this arrest, Ms. Henriquez was

able to secure her “U” visa, securing her U nonimmigrant status.

181.

When Mr. Guzman-Torres was released, he no longer lived with Ms.

Henriquez but would continue to follow her, harass her, meet her at her workplace and violate

the Order of Protection she had secured against him.

182.

Sometimes Ms. Henriquez would call 911 when he violated the Order of

Protection or abused her. Sometimes she would call once or twice a week because he would find

her and beat her. The officers who responded to her calls usually did not communicate with her

in Spanish and did not allow her to make a Domestic Incident Report.

183.

Ms. Henriquez did not feel that the police understood her and as a result, did

30

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 31 of 61 PageID #: 556

not feel that they took the violence seriously.

184.

On September 14, 2011, Ms. Henriquez left the restaurant where she worked

at approximately four or five a.m. Mr. Guzman-Torres grabbed her on the street and put her in

his car. He began insulting her, beating her and holding her by the hair with one hand while

driving with the other. He was inebriated and driving very fast. Ms. Henriquez tried to open the

window and tried to scream; she even tried to throw herself out of the car.

185.

Mr. Guzman-Torres continued to beat her in this manner for approximately

one and half hours. Mr. Guzman-Torres threatened to kill her. Ms. Henriquez lost

consciousness for part of the time because of the beating. Ms. Henriquez thought she would die.

Finally, he threw her out of the car into the street with oncoming cars. As she was thrown out,

she grabbed the mirror which fell off of the car.

186.

Ms. Henriquez, who was visibly injured and disheveled, called 911 after

wandering about in a daze. The police arrived but they did not speak Spanish. They did not

offer her an interpreter or otherwise attempt to communicate with her in Spanish to find out what

had happened. They took her to her home and left her with her aunt. She was not given an

opportunity to make a report or asked to make a statement. The police officers did not ask her

who had hurt her.

187.

Ms. Henriquez immediately called her lawyer, Marisol Arriaga, at the Legal

Aid Society who had been assisting her with her immigration case. On September 16, 2011, Ms. Arriaga called the 50th precinct in the Bronx and spoke with DVPO Grogan. She explained to

Officer Grogan that Ms. Henriquez had been severely brutalized and needed to file a report and

that she would be coming to precinct shortly. Ms. Arriaga then prepared a letter to the precinct

requesting that they provide Ms. Henriquez with interpretation services in order to file a report

31

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 32 of 61 PageID #: 557

about the violent episode.

188.

Ms. Henriquez went to the precinct with the letter from Ms. Arriaga but even

after presenting the letter from Ms. Arriaga to employees at the precinct no one there offered to

provide her with an interpreter or take her report.

189.

A Spanish-speaking receptionist looked up her name in the computer system

and explained that Mr. Guzman-Torres had made a report against her stating that she had broken

the mirror on his car. Ms. Henriquez stated that she had been violently assaulted by him and that

she needed an Order of Protection. The receptionist told her that they could not help her make a

report.

190.

Mr. Guzman-Torres was never arrested as a result of this incident and Ms.

Henriquez never secured an Order of Protection against him as a result of this incident. Later

that day Mr. Guzman-Torres called her to tell her that he had filed a report against her. He also

showed up at her apartment with the report and waved it in her face, laughing and saying that she

would never be able to make a report against him and threatening her with more violence. This

was extremely traumatizing to Ms. Henriquez.

191.

Ms. Henriquez has extensive injuries as a result of the years of violence that

she suffered, including regular migraine headaches, very severe memory problems, almost

constant pain, vision problems, and difficulty understanding people who talk to her.

192.

Ms. Henriquez never tried to seek assistance from the police again because

she feels they are not on her side and will not assist her.

Plaintiff Elena Jimenez

193.

Elena Jimenez is a thirty-four year old Spanish-speaking woman from the

32

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 33 of 61 PageID #: 558

Dominican Republic.

194.

Ms. Jimenez is a monolingual Spanish speaker. She does not speak English

but she can understand some English.

195.

From March 2, 2013 to February 7, 2014, Ms. Jimenez lived at 3540 Decatur

Avenue, Apt. 2D, Bronx, NY 10467, with her four year-old son, Amaurys.

196.

From March 2, 2013 until November 2013, Ms. Jimenez lived with her

husband, Amaurys Mata, who was physically and verbally abusive towards her.

197.

On August 22, 2013, at 3540 Decatur Avenue, Apt. 2D, Bronx, NY 10467,

Ms. Jimenez filed a domestic incident report with the New York Police Department (NYPD)

after Mr. Mata grabbed her arms and pushed her onto the sofa, causing pain to both arms. She

wrote a statement in Spanish on the domestic incident report and reported the incidents to a

Spanish-speaking police officer.

198.

On or about November 29, 2013, at 3540 Decatur Avenue, Apt. 2D, Bronx,

NY 10467, Ms. Jimenez filed a domestic incident report with the NYPD after Mr. Mata verbally

and physically assaulted her. While intoxicated, Mr. Mata called Ms. Jimenez derogatory names,

refused to let her leave the apartment, and took her cell phone when she attempted to call a cab.

He then pushed her to the edge of the bed, forcefully grabbed her arm, kicked her thigh, and

caused her to sustain bruising and be in substantial pain. When he grabbed her, his whole body

weight was on top of her, causing her to suffer a miscarriage a few days later. She was seven

weeks pregnant. He also cut the telephone cable wire so that she could not use the land line to

call for help.

199.

Eventually, Ms. Jimenez was able to call 911 using someone else’s cell

phone. Two English-speaking officers arrived, one of whom spoke basic Spanish. She explained

33

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 34 of 61 PageID #: 559

to the officer who spoke basic Spanish what happened to her. She explained that Mr. Mata had

grabbed her arms, kicked her leg, and put his whole body weight against her body. She explained

that he had taken her cell phone and cut the telephone cable. She showed the officers her arms

which were red and in pain. The officers spoke with Mr. Mata, who was intoxicated. During the

conversation, Mr. Mata agreed that he would leave.

200.

As he was leaving, Ms. Jimenez asked the officer, in Spanish, “He’s not going

to be arrested?” The officer responded, “No, he’s leaving.” The officer then told her that she

could go to Family Court to get an order of protection. Ms. Jimenez was surprised that Mr. Mata

was not arrested for assaulting her. She wrote a statement in Spanish about what had happened to

her and it was included in the Domestic Incident Report.

201.

Over the next week, and for several weeks afterwards until approximately

January 27, 2014, Mr. Mata threatened to kill Ms. Jimenez by phone and by text message on

multiple occasions. He called from numerous phone numbers but Ms. Jimenez always

recognized his voice. On two occasions, Mr. Mata said, “Don’t worry. I’m going to kill you.”

202.

On or about December 2, 2013, Ms. Jimenez filed a Family Offense petition

in Bronx Family Court, seeking an Order of Protection against Mr. Mata. Ms. Jimenez was

granted a temporary order of protection and was advised to return to court on December 6, 2013.

203.

Sometime between November 29, 2013 and December 5, 2014, Ms. Jimenez

suffered a miscarriage, and experienced severe physical and emotional pain.

204.

On December 5, 2014, Ms. Jimenez was released from Montefiore Medical

Center. Her doctor advised her not to go to court because she was prescribed bed rest. On the

following day, December 6, 2014, Ms. Jimenez was recovering from her miscarriage and could

not attend the appearance. Her petition was dismissed without prejudice.

34

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 35 of 61 PageID #: 560

205.

On or about January 6, 2014, Ms. Jimenez filed a new Family Offense petition

in Bronx Family Court and received a Temporary Order of Protection, valid until February 3,

2014. Mr. Mata’s mother handed him a copy of the Temporary Order of Protection on or about

January 15, 2014. The order of protection required Mr. Mata to stay away from Ms. Jimenez and

their son, Amaurys, their home, and Amaurys’s school. He was also ordered to refrain from

communication or any other contact with them and to refrain from assault, stalking, harassment,

aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, strangulation, criminal obstruction of

breathing or circulation, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, sexual abuse, sexual misconduct,

forcible touching, intimidation, threats, or any criminal offense against them.

206.

On or about January 29, 2014, at approximately 5pm, at 3540 Decatur

Avenue, Apt. 2D, Bronx, NY 10467, Ms. Jimenez returned home with her son, who was ill and

had just been released from the emergency room, and discovered that the locks to her apartment

had been changed without her knowledge or permission. She called 911 and spoke with a

Spanish-speaking operator.

207.

About an hour later, two police officers arrived, neither of whom spoke

Spanish. One of the officers was Officer Sweeting. With the help of a neighbor present in the

building lobby, Ms. Jimenez explained, with the neighbor acting as an interpreter, that she had

an order of protection from Bronx Family Court and that her husband had changed the locks of

her apartment without her knowledge and in violation of the order of protection. With her

neighbor's interpretation, she also explained that Mr. Mata had been making death threats against

her.

208.

It appeared that no one was present in her apartment. Ms. Jimenez filed

another domestic incident report, and wrote a statement in Spanish. The officers wrote that Mr.

35

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 36 of 61 PageID #: 561

Mata was charged with the crimes of Aggravated Harassment and Unlawful Eviction on the

Domestic Incident Report, and noted that Mr. Mata had made death threats against Ms. Jimenez.

The officers told Ms. Jimenez that they did not have authorization to open the door and that she

could go get a locksmith. They told Ms. Jimenez they could not do anything more. They told her

that if her husband were present then they would arrest him but that since he wasn’t there, they

couldn’t do anything.

209.

Unable to get into her apartment, Ms. Jimenez had no clothes or food or milk

for her son. She had to borrow clothes from a friend for herself and her son.

210.

On or about January 30, 2014, at approximately 6pm, at 3540 Decatur

Avenue, Apt. 2D, Bronx, NY 10467, Ms. Jimenez returned home with her four year old son,

who was still ill and had spent a second day in the emergency room due to a persistent fever.

When she arrived, she discovered that the locks to her apartment were still changed and she and

her son were unable to enter. She planned to call a locksmith but then she heard her husband

inside the apartment. She called 911 and spoke with a Spanish-speaking operator. She advised

the operator that she had a valid order of protection and that she believed Mr. Mata was in her

apartment and that he had changed the locks. She explained to the 911 operator that she needed a

Spanish-speaking police officer.

211.

Ms. Jimenez waited with her son for the police to arrive. She waited for over

an hour and a half. She called two times, explaining that she needed an officer to arrive while her

husband was present. She also explained the situation to her neighbor who lived in her building

and who is a police officer in Long Island. Her neighbor, Jie, called 911 on her behalf two times

while they waited.

212.

Finally, two English-speaking officers arrived who did not speak Spanish. Ms.

36

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 37 of 61 PageID #: 562

Jimenez asked them for a Spanish interpreter. They ignored her request. She said numerous

times in Spanish, “I do not speak English”, “Please” “I need someone to explain things to me.”

She then called her neighbor, Jie, on her phone and asked him to interpret for her, using the

speaker phone option on her cell phone. With the assistance of Jie, Ms. Jimenez explained to the

police officers who had arrived that she had a valid order of protection against Mr. Mata and that

he had unlawfully changed the locks to her apartment. She showed the officers her copy of the

order of protection and asked them to give a copy to Mr. Mata. The whole time that she was

explaining what help she needed, one of the police officer was holding her cell phone in his

hand, as Jie attempted to interpret on her behalf.

213.

As they went upstairs to the apartment, the officers told Ms. Jimenez that they

did not want to continue to use the interpretation services of her neighbor, via cell phone,

because they said he wasn’t authorized. Ms. Jimenez declined to hang up the phone and

continued to ask her neighbor to interpret for her.

214.

When the police officers arrived at her apartment and knocked on the door,

Mr. Mata opened the door and was in the apartment with a woman and a man. Mr. Mata and his

friends spoke English with the police officers. The police officers did not give the order of

protection to Mr. Mata, even though one of them was holding the order of protection in his hand.

They did not arrest Mr. Mata.

215.

While Ms. Jimenez waited outside of her apartment, the police officers, Mr.

Mata, and Mr. Mata’s friends began putting her belongings into trash bags. When she saw what

they were doing, she tried to explain, with the help of Jie, that those were not the things that she

needed and that she needed her son’s clothing. The officers told Ms. Jimenez that she had five

minutes to collect her personal belongings and to leave the apartment. After three minutes of

37

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 38 of 61 PageID #: 563

trying to collect her things, one of the police officers pushed Ms. Jimenez and told her that she

had to leave.

216.

While the police officers, Mr. Mata, and his friends were putting her personal

items into trash bags, the police officers laughed with Mr. Mata and mocked Ms. Jimenez for

living in this country and not speaking English. One of the police officers said to Ms. Jimenez,

“Your husband is having a party. You should stay quiet.” Ms. Jimenez understands enough

English to know what they were saying, even though she cannot speak English.

217.

Throughout this entire incident, Ms. Jimenez attempted to explain to the

officers repeatedly and with the assistance of her neighbor, that she lived in the apartment with

her son and that she had an order of protection against Mr. Mata. Unsuccessful in persuading the

police officers, Ms. Jimenez had no choice but to leave the apartment with her sick son. She was

not permitted to file a domestic incident report. That evening, the temperature dropped to 16 degrees Fahrenheit.1

218.

The police officers left the trash bags containing her personal items on the

sidewalk in front of her building. When Ms. Jimenez’s friend came out of his car to help her pick

up the trash bags, the officers told him in English “You speak English? No? Move it, move it,

move it.” The officers motioned for her friend to move away. One of the officers then gave her

the order of protection back.

219.

After taking her personal items to a friend’s house, Ms. Jimenez went to the

52nd precinct to request assistance from a Spanish-speaking police officer. She spoke with

Officer Vidal, who spoke to her in Spanish, and explained what had happened. Officer Vidal

asked her if she saw the officers who had responded to the 911 call in the precinct. Ms. Jimenez

1 http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/january-weather/349727.
38

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 39 of 61 PageID #: 564

said that she did not. Ms. Jimenez then waited until the officers arrived. When they walked into

the precinct, Ms. Jimenez informed Officer Vidal that they had arrived. Officer Vidal asked the

officers what had happened and they told him that they were not able to communicate with Ms.

Jimenez because she speaks Spanish.

220.

Officer Vidal informed Ms. Jimenez that the officers had made a mistake and

told her that they would correct the mistake. They told her not to worry. Two police cars then

accompanied Ms. Jimenez back to her apartment. Of the four officers with Ms. Jimenez when

they went back to her apartment, two spoke Spanish and two did not. One of the officers was

Officer Vidal. When they entered the apartment, they arrested Mr. Mata. Ms. Jimenez was never

permitted to file another domestic incident report.

221.

Ms. Jimenez lost over $9000 in cash and personal property while she was

unlawfully evicted from her home. The next day, Ms. Jimenez’s son’s condition worsened and

she was forced to take him back to the emergency room. He suffered from a persistent fever and

a throat infection.

222.

Ms. Jimenez fears for her life and the life of her son, and believes that the

police gave her husband numerous opportunities to kill her when they failed to arrest him in

November and January. Had she not returned to the precinct and found a Spanish-speaking

officer, Ms. Jimenez fears that her husband would never have been arrested and would have

killed her. She fears that the police are unable and unwilling to protect her against her husband,

and she believes that the police discriminated against her for not speaking English.

Plaintiff Graciela Simbana

223.

Graciela Simbana is a twenty-five year old woman from Ecuador who resides

on Staten Island. Ms. Simbana’s primary language is Spanish, and her ability to speak and

39

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 40 of 61 PageID #: 565

understand English is very limited.

224.

Ms. Simbana had a full stay-away Temporary Order of Protection from

criminal court against Daniel Almazo that was issued on October 20, 2013.

225.

On April 14, 2014, Mr. Almazo physically attacked Ms. Simbana at her home

on Staten Island.

226.

Ms. Simbana called 911 and spoke to an operator in Spanish. The operator

told Ms. Simbana that the NYPD would send a Spanish-speaking officer to the scene.

227.

When the responding officers arrived, neither of them were Spanish-speaking.

228.

The officers communicated only with Mr. Almazo in English, and ignored

Ms. Simbana’s injuries and her attempts to communicate.

229.

Ms. Simbana’s friend then asked an English-speaking relative of the landlord

to help interpret for Ms. Simbana.

230.

Only with the help of the landlord’s relative, Mr. Almazo was persuaded to

surrender his keys to the apartment and to leave the scene, and the police were persuaded to fill

out a DIR.

231.

However, even though Ms. Simbana had visible injuries from the attack and

showed the officers the full stay-away Temporary Order of Protection, the officers failed to

make the mandatory arrest of Mr. Almazo.

232.

The NYPD made no attempt to arrange for appropriate interpretation for Ms.

Simbana in light of the domestic violence situation. Moreover, aside from the violations of

NYPD language access policy, in this incident the officers once again violated the NYPD’s most

basic policies and procedures regarding domestic violence incidents and enforcement of orders

of protection.

40

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 41 of 61 PageID #: 566

Plaintiff Oumou Sylla

233.

Ms. Oumou Sylla is a thirty-four year old French-speaking woman from

Guinea who resides in the Bronx. Ms. Sylla’s ability to speak and understand English is very

limited.

234.

On May 21, 2014, Ms. Sylla’s husband, Moussa Kalissa, called 911 and

falsely alleged that Ms. Sylla was attacking him. Ms. Sylla then called 911 herself and spoke to

an operator in broken English.

235.

When officers arrived from the 40th Precinct, they spoke only to Ms. Sylla’s

husband in English, but made no attempt to arrange for interpretation for Ms. Sylla despite her

obvious inability to communicate in English.

236.

Based solely on Mr. Kalissa’s allegations, the officers arrested Ms. Sylla and

separated her from her 9-month-old daughter.

237.

Ms. Sylla was never given a chance to make a statement to the police.

238.

When Ms. Sylla arrived at the 40th Precinct, no one spoke to Ms. Sylla in

French or asked her if she needed an interpreter. Ms. Sylla was not afforded the opportunity to

file a domestic incident report against her husband, and spent the evening in the precinct jail.

239.

Ms. Sylla was not reunited with her daughter until May 30th, after her

attorneys filed emergency papers in Family Court.

Ms. Soledad Julia Hilares Huarca de Ruiz

240.

Ms. Soledad Julia Hilares Huarca de Ruiz is a limited English proficient

woman who lives on Staten Island. Her primary language is Spanish.

241.

Ms. Huarca de Ruiz recently moved to the U.S. with her 8 year-old daughter

41

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 42 of 61 PageID #: 567

to join her husband on Staten Island. Her husband is mentally ill and disabled. He is dependent

on his parents.

242.

Ms. Huarca de Ruiz has been abused verbally and psychologically by her

mother-in-law since arriving in this country. She is scared that her mother-in-law is going to

physically hurt her. Ms. Huarca de Ruiz experiences daily harassment by her mother-in-law.

243.

On September 5, 2014, her mother-in-law was especially abusive towards her.

She felt that the verbal abuse was going to escalate into physical violence. She felt unsafe so she

called 911.

244.

The police officers who arrived at her home, located at 200 Targee Street on

Staten Island, did not speak Spanish. Ms. Huarca de Ruiz believes they were from the 120

precinct. They did not attempt to utilize any interpretation services.

245.

The police officers were met by the Ms. Huarca de Ruiz’s mother-in-law and

other family members who speak English. Her brother-in-law told the officers that Ms. Huarca

de Ruiz was being insulting and tried to hurt them physically. Ms. Huarca de Ruiz did not

understand most of the conversation but understood when the officers told her to “go away”.

246.

Ms. Huarca de Ruiz was very scared and said that she knew that her inability

to speak English was causing a communication problem with the police. They did not allow her

to file a report but her brother-in-law was able to file a report against her.

247.

On September 8, 2014, Ms. Huarca de Ruiz went to the 120 precinct with a

paralegal from Staten Island Legal Services in order to file a report. They waited about 1.5

hours and were repeatedly told that they had to wait for an officer who could operate language

line. At one point, an officer approached the paralegal and asked her some questions about the

client. The paralegal repeatedly stated that the officer should speak to the client with an

42

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 43 of 61 PageID #: 568

interpreter. 248.

On September 9th, Ms. Huarca de Ruiz and her social worker returned to the

precinct in an attempt to file a report. They were asked numerous times what they needed and

each time they stated that they needed a Spanish interpreter to make a report.

249.

A person working at the front desk asked a member of the public to interpret

for Ms. Huarca de Ruiz. Ms. Huarca de Ruiz could not understand this person and did not

understand what the NYPD employee was attempting to communicate.

250.

The paralegal repeatedly requested an interpreter and reiterated that Ms.

Huarca de Ruiz wanted to file a DIR. The NYPD employee at the front desk then told the

paralegal that someone from the DV unit would take her report using the language line.

251.

When the DV officer arrived, approximately 30 minutes later, he asked the

paralegal to explain Ms. Huarca de Ruiz’s issue. The paralegal directed him to speak with Ms.

Huarca de Ruiz directly.

252.

The officer, badge # 5669, then communicated with client using Language

Line. Officer Chi then approached Ms. Huarca de Ruiz and the paralegal, and told them in

English that her husband and brother-in-law were at the precinct yesterday asking about her and

her daughter. Officer Chi, who was one of the officers who arrived at Ms. Huarca de Ruiz’s

home on 9/5/14, asked the paralegal where Ms. Huarca de Ruiz was staying and why she was

afraid of her husband.

253.

The paralegal told officer Chi that it would be better to speak to Ms. Huarca

de Ruiz directly. Officer Noto, from the DV unit, then told Ms. Huarca de Ruiz to go to Family

Court to petition for an Order of Protection. Officer Noto initially refused to file a DIR for Ms.

Huarca de Ruiz, but after the paralegal intervened, he agreed to do so. Ms. Huarca de Ruiz and

43

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 44 of 61 PageID #: 569 her paralegal were in the precinct for 2.5 hours before she was able to file a DIR.

Mr. Bhishma Yogi

254.

On August 8, 2014, Mr. Bhishma Yogi, a limited English proficient Nepali-

speaking man who was an employee of a pool hall in Queens was arrested during a raid because

of suspected gambling.

255.

He was approached by the police officers and tried to tell them he was just an

employee, but mistakenly said “employer”.

256.

One police officer asked him if he spoke Korean and he told them he spoke

Nepali. He tried to talk more but they kept telling him to “shut up”.

257.

Mr. Yogi was handcuffed and arrested. He was taken in a van for a while and

then to the 115th precinct. He was arrested around 4pm on a Friday and was not released until

about 9pm Saturday.

258.

After others arrested at the same time had already been released, Mr. Yogi

finally asked a police officer what was happening as best as he could in English. They told him

they did not have a Nepali interpreter available so they had to wait.

259.

No one ever spoke to him or used an interpreter while he was in police

custody for approximately 29 hours. Mr. Yogi did not know what he was being charged with.

While riding in the van he asked if he could use a bathroom many times and the officers refused.

Mr. Yogi was forced to pee on himself in the van. He also has diabetes and was not given food

that he could eat.

44

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 45 of 61 PageID #: 570

Ms. Pema Sherpa

260.

Ms. Pema Sherpa, a limited English proficient Nepali-speaker, is a victim of

domestic violence. Ms. Sherpa’s husband would punch her, hit her, scratch her and otherwise

abuse her.

261.

On June 24, 2013 her husband attacked her. In her defense, she pushed him

away and his glasses cut his face. He called the police but Ms. Sherpa did not know that at the

time.

262.

Later that night, Ms. Sherpa was asleep in her home next to her children. The

next thing she knew, police officers were in her home and arrested her. She did not know what

was happening and no one gave her any explanation that she could understand. She was

handcuffed in front of her children. She was not provided with interpretation and was never

offered the opportunity to make a statement herself.

263.

Ms. Sherpa was taken to the 108th precinct in Queens. The police did not

offer her an interpreter or ask her if she would like to make a statement at any time. Ms. Sherpa

spent the night in jail and was allowed to leave the next day. Ms. Sherpa was scared and did not

know what was happening.

264.

Upon discharge, a police officer wrote a note in English for her that reads,

“call 911 tell them: I have an OP and I need a police escort to remove things from my home. I

spoke to Officer Maria at 108 precinct.”

265.

Ms. Sherpa continues to be threatened by her husband and has lost all faith in

the police to help her.

45

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 46 of 61 PageID #: 571

Ms. Xiao Fan Li

266.

Ms Xiao Fan Li is a limited English proficient Mandarin speaker. Ms. Li

lives in Brooklyn. On January 19, 2013, Ms. Li’s husband shoved her against a dresser and she

fell to the floor. Later that same day, he kicked her to the floor. That’s when Ms. Li called 911

and spoke to a Mandarin-speaking operator.

267.

She told the operator that her husband was beating her and she needed

assistance. When officers arrived at her home, none of them spoke Mandarin or offered to

provide her with an interpreter.

268.

The officers were speaking with her husband in English within hearing

distance.

269.

The officers asked her if she wanted her husband to be arrested. She didn’t

know what “arrested” meant. No arrest was made. If Ms. Li had known what “arrested” meant,

she would have wanted him arrested.

270.

The officers asked Ms. Li if she needed medical assistance. Her back hurt and

she’d had surgery on it before, and she was sick, so she said yes. An ambulance transported Ms.

Li to Lutheran Medical Center.

271.

Ms. Li wanted legal protection but did not believe she needed mental health

treatment. Ms. Li was admitted to the medical center but did not know that she would not be

allowed to leave without the doctor’s permission. Ms. Li was admitted from 1/20/13 -1/22/13.

272.

On January 22, 2013, after she was discharged from the hospital, Ms. Li went

to the 62nd precinct in order to file a report and press charges. The precinct did offer her an

interpreter, but the interpreter spoke Cantonese, not Mandarin, and Ms. Li could not understand

him. Ms. Li spoke to a female officer, then she was escorted home. 46

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 47 of 61 PageID #: 572

273.

The next day, police officers came to Ms. Li’s home to get more information

and to take photos. Again, they did not speak Mandarin nor did they offer her interpreter

services.

Plaintiff Violence Intervention Program

274. The Violence Intervention Program, Inc. (“VIP”) is a nationally recognized non-

profit organization that aims to remedy and to prevent violence against women. VIP delivers a

full range of services including on-site counseling, residential accommodations and child care.

VIP has offices in Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens.

275.

VIP serves approximately 1,400 women per year and annually receives

approximately 12,000 hotline calls. The majority of VIP’s clients are Spanish-speaking women

with limited English proficiency.

276.

VIP counselors and advocates regularly interact with LEP domestic violence

victims who report experiencing language barriers when attempted to communicate with the

NYPD both at the station houses and in the field with officers who respond to 911 calls.

277.

VIP clients are regularly told by the NYPD that there is no one who can

communicate with them in Spanish and that they must speak English.

278.

English speaking police officers often communicate only with their English-

speaking abusers of VIP clients and do not speak directly with the LEP victim at all.

279.

As a result, many VIP clients, in addition to experiencing fear, frustration and

humiliation, are denied vital assistance and are prevented from filing police reports and making

statements.

280.

As a result of NYPD’s failure to provide language access services, VIP

counselors and advocates are regularly compelled to spend portions of their work day assisting

47

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 48 of 61 PageID #: 573

LEP clients in communicating with the NYPD. VIP staff members frequently call precincts

and/or other NYPD locations to complain about lack of interpreter services, interpret over the

phone with the NYPD when the NYPD fails to provide interpreters for their clients, and

accompany LEP clients to precincts in order to interpret for them.

281.

The NYPD’s failure to provide interpretation for LEP individuals imposes a

significant and ongoing burden on VIP staff members as they attempt to assist their clients. The

constant need to assist LEP clients in communication with the NYPD means that counselors are

often unavailable to provide the numerous other services that VIP offers.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VI OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C § 2000(d), et seq.

282.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

283.

The NYPD is a municipal agency in receipt of funding from the federal

government.

284.

Discrimination based on race and national origin, is prohibited by recipients

of federal financial assistance under 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d), et seq.

285.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice, intentionally

discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origins and limited English proficient

status in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations.

286.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages and have been deprived of their rights under the civil rights laws.

48

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 49 of 61 PageID #: 574

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE SAFE STREETS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d

287.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

288.

The Safe Streets Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, and its implementing regulations

prohibit discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of national origin by programs funded in whole or

in part from funds made available under 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)(4). The regulations were

promulgated by the United States Department of Justice and codified at 28 C.F.R. § 42.203.

289.

The NYPD receives federal funding that subjects it to the requirements of the

Safe Streets Act.

290.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice, intentionally

discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their national origins and limited English proficient

status in violation of the Safe Streets Act and its implementing regulations.

291.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and have been deprived of their rights under the Safe Streets Act and its

implementing regulations.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S CONSTITUTION

292.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

293.

Defendants denied Plaintiffs equal access to the services and protections of

the NYPD based on their national origins. Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 49

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 50 of 61 PageID #: 575

294.

Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their

Fourteenth Amendment rights. A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

295.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
CONSTITUTION

296.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein

297.

Defendants denied Plaintiffs equal access to the services and protections of

the NYPD based on their national origins. Such discrimination violates the Equal Protection

Clause of the New York State Constitution.

298.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PETITION GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES UNDER U.S CONSTITUTION

299.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

300.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice of denying language

services to limited English proficient individuals, prevented Plaintiffs from filing complaints and

reports and otherwise communicating with police officers from whom they sought assistance.

301.

Defendants acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiffs of their First

50

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 51 of 61 PageID #: 576

Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. A cause of action is

created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

302.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT UNDER ARTICLE I, §9 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

303.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

304.

Defendants, through their policy, custom or practice of denying language

services to limited English proficient individuals, prevented Plaintiffs from filing complaints and

reports and otherwise communicating with police officers from whom they sought assistance.

305.

Defendants thereby deprived Plaintiffs of their right under the New York

State Constitution to petition the government.

306.

As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned acts, Plaintiffs have

suffered injuries and damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN UNDER NEW
YORK CITY’S HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

307. herein.
308. Law.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth Defendant NYPD is a public accommodation under the NYC Human Rights
51

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 52 of 61 PageID #: 577

309.

Defendants’ custom and practice of refusing to offer and provide

interpretation services to limited English proficient Plaintiffs and others seeking to access NYPD

services intentionally discriminates against Plaintiffs and other persons of foreign national origin

by denying them access to the services and protections of the NYPD in violation of the New

York City Human Rights Law.

310.

Defendants’ degrading and dehumanizing treatment of Plaintiffs constitutes

intentional discrimination based on their national origin and deprives them of their rights under

the New York City Human Rights Law.

311.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and damages in an amount to be

determined by the court.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DISPARATE IMPACT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN
UNDER NEW YORK CITY’S HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

312.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

313.

Defendant NYPD is a public accommodation under the NYCHRL.

314.

Defendants’ custom and practice of refusing to offer and provide

interpretation services to limited English proficient Plaintiffs and others seeking to access NYPD

services disparately impacts Plaintiffs and other persons of foreign national origin by denying

them access to the services and protections of the NYPD offered to English speakers, in violation

of the New York City Human Rights Law.

315.

Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and damages in an amount to be

determined by the court.

52

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 53 of 61 PageID #: 578

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MACARENO PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
AGAINST OFFICER TRADOLSE AND JOHN DOES 1-3

316.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

317.

Defendants wrongfully and illegally arrested and detained Plaintiff Macareno.

318.

The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest and detention

of Plaintiff Macareno was carried out without any basis, without Plaintiff’s consent, and without

probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In fact, Ms. Macareno, who is a victim of extreme and

repeated domestic violence, attempted to communicate with and repeatedly asked for an

interpreter to communicate with Defendants and was repeatedly denied, as alleged herein.

Defendants, without hearing her story, arrested her without cause.

319.

By using excessive force against Ms. Macareno and by failing to provide her

with necessary medical treatment, Defendants deprived her of the rights, remedies, privileges,

and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States, including, but not limited to,

rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

320.

Officer Tradolse and John Does 1-3 acted, or failed to act, or to intervene,

under color of state law and in their individual and official capacities and/or within the scope of

their respective employments as NYPD officers. Said acts or failures to act or intervene by

Defendants were beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of

their powers. Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive

Plaintiff Macareno of her constitutional rights.

53

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 54 of 61 PageID #: 579

321.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct detailed above, Plaintiff

Macareno suffered injuries and damages alleged herein.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF MACARENO UNDER STATE LAW AGAINST
OFFICER TRADOLSE AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-3

322.

Plaintiff ARLET MACARENO repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

323.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Ms. Macareno, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and color of

state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely arrested and

falsely imprisoned Ms. Macareno. At all relevant times, the Individual Defendants acted

forcibly in apprehending and arresting Ms. Macareno.

324.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Macareno’s

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Ms. Macareno.

325.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

326.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

54

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 55 of 61 PageID #: 580

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF PADILLA TORRES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 AGAINST OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES 4-6

327.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

328.

Defendants wrongfully and illegally arrested and detained Plaintiff Padilla

Torres.

329.

The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest and detention

of Plaintiff Padilla Torres was carried out without any basis, without Plaintiff’s consent, and

without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. In fact, Ms. Padilla Torres, who is a victim of

domestic violence, attempted to communicate with and repeatedly asked for an interpreter to

communicate with Defendants and was repeatedly denied, as alleged herein. Defendants,

without hearing her story, arrested her without cause.

330.

By arresting and prosecuting Ms. Torres, Defendants deprived her of the

rights, remedies, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to every citizen of the United States,

including, but not limited to, rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution. A cause of action is created by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

331.

John/Jane Does 4-6 acted, or failed to act, or to intervene, under color of state

law and in their individual and official capacities and/or within the scope of their respective

employments as NYPD officers. Said acts or failures to act or intervene by Defendants were

beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, without authority of law, and in abuse of their powers.

Defendants acted willfully, knowingly, and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff Torres of

55

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 56 of 61 PageID #: 581

her constitutional rights.

332.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct detailed above, Plaintiff

Padilla Torres suffered injuries and damages alleged herein.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF PADILLA TORRES UNDER STATE LAW
AGAINST OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES 4-6 AND CITY OF NEW YORK

333.

Plaintiff YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES repeats and re-alleges the foregoing

paragraphs related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set

forth herein.

334.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Ms. Padilla Torres, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and

color of state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely

arrested and falsely imprisoned Ms. Padilla Torres. At all relevant times, the Individual

Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending and arresting Ms. Padilla Torres.

335.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Padilla Torres’

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Ms. Padilla Torres.

336.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

337.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

56

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 57 of 61 PageID #: 582

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF JIMENEZ UNDER STATE LAW AGAINST OFFICER SWEETING AND JOHN/JANE DOES 19-
20 AND CITY OF NEW YORK

338.

Plaintiff ELENA JIMENEZ repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs

related to her interaction with the NYPD as if the same were fully set forth herein.

339.

By reason of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and

color of state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, the

Individual Defendants acted forcibly in their interactions with Ms. Padilla Torres.

340.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Padilla Torres’

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Ms. Padilla Torres.

341.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

342.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF SHERPA UNDER STATE LAW AGAINST OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES 21-22 AND CITY OF
NEW YORK

343.

Plaintiff PEMA SHERPA repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs

related to her arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set forth

herein. 57

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 58 of 61 PageID #: 583

344.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Ms. Pema Sherpa, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and

color of state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely

arrested and falsely imprisoned Ms. Pema Sherpa. At all relevant times, the Individual

Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending and arresting Ms. Pema Sherpa.

345.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Ms. Pema Sherpa’s

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Ms. Pema Sherpa.

346.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

347.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF YOGI UNDER STATE LAW
AGAINST JOHN/JANE DOES 23-24 AND CITY OF NEW YORK

348.

Plaintiff BHISHMA YOGI repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs

related to his arrest and ongoing contact with the NYPD as if the same were fully set forth

herein.

349.

By reason of the foregoing, and by wrongfully and illegally arresting,

detaining and imprisoning Mr. Bhishma Yogi, the Individual Defendants, under pretense and

color of state law and acting within the scope of their employment as NYPD officers, falsely

arrested and falsely imprisoned Mr. Bhishma Yogi. At all relevant times, the Individual 58

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 59 of 61 PageID #: 584

Defendants acted forcibly in apprehending and arresting Mr. Bhishma Yogi.

350.

The Individual Defendants acted with a knowing, willful, wanton, grossly

reckless, unlawful, unreasonable, unconscionable, and flagrant disregard of Mr. Bhishma Yogi’s

rights, privileges, welfare, and well-being, and are guilty of egregious and gross misconduct

toward Mr. Bhishma Yogi.

351.

Defendant City of New York, as employer of the Individual Defendants, is

responsible for the Individual Defendants’ wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

352.

As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority

detailed above, plaintiff sustained the damages herein before alleged.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 1. Declare that Defendants’ actions violated the Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. Constitution, the New York Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, the laws of New York State, and New York City Human Rights Law; 2. Enjoin further violations of the Plaintiffs’ rights by issuing an injunction requiring the NYPD to: a. Abide by laws and policies requiring the provision of interpreter services; b. Refrain from unlawful treatment of LEP and foreign-born individuals;

59

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 60 of 61 PageID #: 585
c. Institute and implement policies and programs with respect to the provision of interpreter services and treatment of foreign-born and LEP communities that comply with all legal requirements;
d. Establish a system for tracking and monitoring NYPD practices regarding the use of interpreter services;
e. Institute measures to ensure compliance with NYPD policies regarding language services, including ongoing documentation of the provision of interpreter services.
f. Develop and implement appropriate training for members of the NYPD regarding treatment of LEP and foreign-born communities including when to provide an interpreter, how to properly work with interpreters, sensitivity training and cultural competence;
g. Develop appropriate supervisory procedures regarding the treatment of foreignborn and LEP communities and the provision of interpreter services to LEP individuals;
h. Implement a system of reporting to the Plaintiffs and the Court regarding the steps taken to cure the violations of the Plaintiffs’ and other LEP individuals’rights;
3. Issue a judgment against the City of New York in an amount to be determined by the Court, including compensatory damages for injuries sustained by Plaintiffs in amounts that are fair, just, and reasonable;
4. Award Plaintiffs damages against Officer Tradolse, Officer Furda and John Does 1-24 to the extent that their liability is based upon actions that were reckless, willful, wanton, and malicious undertaken in their individual capacities, in an amount which is fair, just, and reasonably designed to punish and deter said conduct;
5. Order Defendants to pay reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiffs; 6. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
60

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 60-2 Filed 10/07/14 Page 61 of 61 PageID #: 586

Dated: October 7, 2014 New York, N.Y.

AMY TAYLOR, ESQ. NANCY GOLDHILL, ESQ. EDWARD JOSEPHSON, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER LAMB, ESQ. STEPHANIE TAYLOR, ESQ. LEGAL SERVICES NYC 40 Worth Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 (646) 442-3600
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF, ESQ. 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, N.Y. 10019 (212) 763-5000 (t) (212) 763-5001 (f) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

61

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 642

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ, GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA, SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM,

No. 13 CV 00076 (MKB) (RER)

Plaintiffs,

STIPULATION AND ORDER

v.

OF SETTLEMENT

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, RAYMOND W. KELLY, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his individual and official capacities, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENZO TRADOLSE, in his individual capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FURDA, in his individual capacity, OFFICER SWEETING, in his individual capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES #1 THROUGH #24 in their individual capacities,
Defendants.

RECITALS WHEREAS, three amended complaints were filed and a fourth amended complaint was proposed to be filed (the “Complaint”) on behalf of Plaintiffs YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ, GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA,

1

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 643
SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM and proposed Plaintiffs SABINA PERALTA, LEONOR TEJADA, and MARITZA VEGA (collectively “Plaintiffs”);
WHEREAS Plaintiffs asserted claims against the CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG; RAYMOND W. KELLY, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT (NYPD); OFFICER VINCENZO TRADOLSE; OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FURDA; OFFICER SWEETING; OFFICER FRANK AGOSTINI; as well as 24 John and Jane Doe NYPD officers1 (collectively “Defendants”);
WHEREAS Plaintiffs alleged that because of their national origin and status as limited English proficient individuals, Defendants failed to provide appropriate police services to Plaintiffs;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants’ conduct violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Safe Streets Act, the Equal Protection Clause and the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York;
WHEREAS no finding of liability has been made, and Defendants deny any and all claims of fault, liability or wrongdoing asserted in the Complaint;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs and Defendants (the “Parties”) are entering into this Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) solely for the purpose of settling the disputes between them and to avoid further litigation;
1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Mayor Bill de Blasio and NYPD Commissioner James P. O’Neill are automatically substituted as parties for former Mayor of the City of New York Michael Bloomberg and former NYPD Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, respectively.
2

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 644
WHEREAS the NYPD’s Language Access Plan requires its officers and public-facing staff, when performing law enforcement functions, to take reasonable steps to offer limited English proficient (LEP) individuals timely and meaningful access to NYPD’s services;
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the implementation of NYPD’s Language Access Plan is intended to provide LEP individuals with access to free foreign language assistance when necessary or upon request when NYPD employees are performing law enforcement functions, such as when NYPD officers respond to family matters including incidents involving domestic violence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned, that this action is settled on the following terms and conditions: I. DEFINITIONS:
1. The following definitions apply to this Stipulation: a. “Bystander” means anyone providing oral foreign language assistance who is not a Certified Bilingual Officer or an interpreter provided through a Telephonic Interpretation Service. As such, a Bystander includes: i. bilingual NYPD officers and employees who are not Certified Bilingual Officers; and ii. bilingual individuals, including minors. b. “Certified Bilingual Officer” means an NYPD officer or employee who has met a predetermined level of competency pursuant to the Foreign Language Certification Initiative. c. “Citywide Expansion Date” means the date that the DV Language Access Program is expanded citywide to all patrol boroughs.
3

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 645
d. “DV” means domestic violence. e. “DV family job” means an incident that involves a family type offense,
including a DV incident. f. “DV Language Access Program” or “Program” means the NYPD program
wherein Language Services (as defined herein) are made available to LEP Individuals to provide effective communication with them when the NYPD responds to DV family jobs that involve individuals who need or request foreign language assistance services to communicate with the responding NYPD officers. g. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Stipulation is entered as an order of the Court. h. “Effective Period” means the period of time from the Effective Date of this Stipulation until the Termination Date. i. “Exigent circumstances” means situations when there is an imminent threat to life, health, or safety, or a suspect’s escape is imminent, or evidence is about to be removed or destroyed. j. “Foreign Language Certification Initiative” means the NYPD’s use of Berlitz (or another comparable company or entity) to evaluate the oral foreign language skills of NYPD officers and employees to determine whether that officer or employee is proficient in that foreign language. k. “Injunctive Obligations” means the obligations of the City of New York set forth in Section III, paragraphs 3 through 10, of this Stipulation. l. “LEP Individual” or “Limited English Proficient Individual” means an
4

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 646
individual who does not speak English as their primary language and who cannot understand the English language at a level sufficient to permit the individual to communicate effectively with an NYPD officer or employee. m. “Language Services” means the oral foreign language services that may be used under the umbrella of the DV Language Access Program to help facilitate effective policing and communication between NYPD officers who respond to DV family jobs involving LEP Individuals, and those LEP Individuals. Language services may be provided by:
i. a Certified Bilingual Officer; ii. an interpreter employed by a Telephonic Interpretation Service;
and/or iii. a Bystander (as defined herein), within the parameters described
in paragraph 2(d) of this Stipulation. n. “NYPD” means the New York City Police Department. o. “Parties” means the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in this action. p. “Telephonic Interpretation Service” means a vendor, such as Language
Line, that provides oral foreign language interpretation services or assistance to the NYPD by telephone. q. “Termination Date” means the date that this Stipulation terminates and the Court’s jurisdiction ends for all purposes, which shall be one year after the Citywide Expansion Date unless Plaintiffs successfully move to extend the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 12 of this Stipulation.
5

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 647
II. SCOPE OF THE DV LANGUAGE ACCESS PROGRAM 2. The DV Language Access Program will include the following specific
procedures: a. NYPD officers have NYPD-issued cell phones or smart phones by which officers responding to calls that fall within the DV Language Access Program may access a Telephonic Interpretation Service at no cost to the officer. b. 911 will alert the responding NYPD officer(s) when a 911 caller is communicating with the 911 operator (i) in a foreign language, or (ii) with the assistance of an interpreter. c. The responding NYPD officer(s) will determine whether there is a need for Language Services, and if so, will offer the LEP Individual Language Services in the form of: i. a Certified Bilingual Officer, or ii. an interpreter with a Telephonic Interpretation Service, unless the use of a Bystander is permitted as set forth in paragraph 2(d) of this Stipulation. d. An NYPD officer may use a Bystander to provide language assistance in Exigent Circumstances, and during the initial assessment on scene to determine whether there are Exigent Circumstances. However, after any Exigent Circumstances have passed, an NYPD officer will use a Certified Bilingual Officer or a Telephonic Interpretation Service: i. to verify information obtained by an NYPD officer through the
6

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 648
use of a Bystander by interviewing the LEP Individual; and ii. to offer the LEP Individual an opportunity to provide additional
information to the NYPD officer. e. Notwithstanding paragraph (2)(d), an NYPD officer is not required to
verify the information obtained by an NYPD officer through the use of a Bystander during Exigent Circumstances:
i. in the case of the LEP Individual’s hospitalization, death, disappearance, or refusal/inability to cooperate with the NYPD; or
ii. when the LEP Individual declines the NYPD officer’s offer to use a Certified Bilingual Officer or Telephonic Interpretation Service.
f. If an LEP Individual declines an offer by an NYPD officer to use a Certified Bilingual Officer or Telephonic Interpretation Service, the NYPD officer will note that the offer was declined in his or her memobook.
g. The responding NYPD officer(s) will provide the 911 dispatcher with the appropriate disposition code, which will include one of the following 90I codes (or their functional equivalent if the NYPD modifies the codes during the Effective Period of this Stipulation): i. a 90I(1) code to indicate that a Telephonic Interpretation Service was used to provide Language Services; ii. a 90I(2) code to indicate that a Certified Bilingual Officer
7

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 649
provided Language Services; iii. a 90I(4) code to indicate that a Bystander was used to provide
Language Services; and iv. a 90I(5) code to indicate that no Language Services were needed. h. The DV Language Access Program does not apply to NYPD interactions or encounters to assist in identifying an LEP Individual’s primary language. i. If an NYPD officer responds to a DV family job that involves one or more individuals who need or request language services to communicate with the responding officer (i.e., the DV family job falls within the scope of the DV Language Access Program) and the officer is unable to obtain the assistance of a Certified Bilingual Officer or an interpreter with a Telephonic Interpreter Service in the needed foreign language, the officer will have complied with the DV Language Access Program and this Stipulation if s/he notifies his/her patrol supervisor of the need for and the officer’s efforts to obtain Language Services for the individual(s) involved in the DV family job who need or request language services, and the patrol supervisor authorizes the responding officer to cease efforts to obtain Language Services. In that case, the responding officer shall offer such individuals the opportunity to accompany an NYPD officer to an NYPD precinct to await the availability of a Certified Bilingual Officer or interpreter with a Telephonic Interpreter Service who speaks the needed foreign language. The officer shall document the relevant details in
8

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 650
his/her memo book, including the efforts made to obtain Language Services, the names of the individuals involved, and the name of the patrol supervisor. III. DEFENDANT CITY’S INJUNCTIVE OBLIGATIONS: A. Implementation of the DV Language Access Program 3. The NYPD will do the following: a. No later than forty-five (45) days after the Citywide Expansion Date, the NYPD will identify a staff member at each precinct who will be responsible for addressing any questions or concerns related to the NYPD’s foreign language access procedures. b. No later than forty-five (45) days after the Citywide Expansion Date, the NYPD will designate a centrally-based staff member or unit to be responsible for addressing any NYPD officer’s questions and concerns related to NYPD’s foreign language access procedures. c. No later than eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date, the NYPD will expand the DV Language Access Program city-wide to all patrol boroughs. d. No later than five (5) days after the DV Language Access Program’s expansion to a new precinct, group of precincts, or patrol borough, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be notified of the expansion. e. No later than five (5) days after the Citywide Expansion Date, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be notified of the Citywide expansion. f. No later than three months after a precinct has come online with the DV
9

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 651
Language Access Program, an NYPD supervisor (or designee) at that precinct will conduct monthly self-inspections to evaluate officer compliance with the DV Language Access Program in that precinct, including the review and follow-up of officer use of 10-90I(4) and 1090I(5) codes (or their functional equivalent if the NYPD modifies the codes during the Effective Period of this Stipulation). g. Between the Citywide Expansion Date and the Termination Date, the NYPD’s Quality Assurance Division (QAD) will conduct an annual audit to evaluate the NYPD’s compliance with the DV Language Access Program. h. During the Effective Period, the NYPD will continue its Foreign Language Certification Initiative. i. The NYPD will revise its written policies, including Patrol Guides, and training materials, as necessary, to reflect its DV Language Access Program. j. No later than the Citywide Expansion Date, the NYPD will have trained uniformed members of the NYPD responding to 911 calls on the scope of the DV Language Access Program as set forth in paragraph 2 of the Stipulation. k. The NYPD will engage in targeted public outreach to LEP communities and community-based organizations on the DV Language Access Program and the availability of foreign language interpretation services.
10

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 652
B. Training of Certain NYPD Employees 4. No later than June 1, 2018, the NYPD will train (a) all uniformed members of the NYPD and (b) civilian members of the NYPD assigned to precincts whose duties include taking complaints from the public on the NYPD’s language access policies and procedures (collectively, “staff”), including: i. how to identify an LEP Individual; ii. how to identify an LEP Individual’s primary language; iii. how to access the Telephonic Interpretation Service; iv. for uniformed members of the NYPD only: the parameters of when officers may use a Bystander to provide Language Services as set forth in paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) herein; v. that LEP Individuals should be advised that foreign language interpretation services are available to communicate with NYPD employees in a foreign language at no cost to the LEP Individual; and vi. who NYPD staff should contact with questions or concerns or to obtain more information on NYPD’s language access policies and procedures.
C. Procedures and Training Materials: 5. As per the timing set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Stipulation, the NYPD
will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with copies of the following NYPD documents when they are created or materially revised:
a. The “Language Access Plan for Limited English Proficient Persons” (the
11

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 653
“LAP”); the “Patrol Guide 212-90: Guidelines for Interaction with Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons” (the “PG 212-90”); and any Interim Orders related to PG 212-90 (the “PG 212-90 Interim Orders”). b. All training materials concerning the provision of Language Services by staff (as defined in paragraph 4). 6. With respect to documents referenced in paragraph 5 of this Stipulation that are newly created or are initial revisions to NYPD documents to implement Stipulation obligations: On or before 120 days after the Effective Date, and prior to their adoption, Plaintiffs’ counsel will be provided with a draft of any such document. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have forty-five (45) days to provide written feedback to the City’s counsel listed in paragraph 29 herein. The NYPD will consider any written feedback received from Plaintiffs’ counsel in good faith. 7. With respect to documents referenced in paragraph 5 of this Stipulation that are being materially revised (after the initial revisions referenced in paragraph 6): During the Effective Period of the Stipulation, the NYPD will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel, when feasible, with a draft of any such document undergoing material revision(s) no less than twenty one (21) days before its adoption. Plaintiffs’ counsel will have five (5) days to provide written feedback. The NYPD will consider any written feedback received from Plaintiffs’ counsel in good faith. 8. The NYPD reserves the right to make changes to or update the training materials referenced in paragraph 5(b) of the Stipulation without providing notice to Plaintiffs pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Stipulation: a. when the change is minor and immaterial; or b. in response to feedback from participants or trainers’ experience in using a particular training material; or
12

CCaassee11:1:133-c-cvv-0-000007766-M-MKKBB-R-REERR DDooccuummeennt t8801-1 FFileiledd0055/2/148/1/177 PPaaggee1133oof f2200PPaaggeeIDID##: :665344
c. in response to a change in the governing law. In such a case, copies of the updated training material(s) will be provided to Plaintiffs’ counsel no later than twenty-one (21) days after they are first used.
D. Reporting: 9. During the Effective Period of the Stipulation, the NYPD will share the following
information/data with Plaintiffs’ counsel: a. a summary of the QAD’s annual audit (the “QAD Audit”) on the DV Language Access Program within fourteen (14) days of the QAD Audit Report being finalized; b. the number of calls made to Language Line, the duration of the calls, and the languages requested; c. the number of Certified Bilingual Officers and foreign languages added to the Foreign Language Certification Initiative; and d. with respect to the DV Language Access Program, the NYPD will provide the following data for those NYPD patrol boroughs that have participated in the DV Language Access Program for a minimum of ninety (90) days: i. the “90I”codes reflected in the NYPD’s ICAD reports, which will include the number of 10-90I(1), 10-90I(2), 10-90I(4), and 10-90I(5) codes (or their functional equivalent(s) if the NYPD modifies the codes during the Effective Period of this Stipulation); and ii. a summary of the results of the monthly self-inspections conducted by the precinct supervisors.
13

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 655
10. During the Effective Period, the NYPD will provide the information and data identified in paragraph 9(b)-(d) of this Stipulation to Plaintiffs’ counsel on a semi-annual basis, starting six (6) months after the Effective Date, until twelve (12) months after the Citywide Expansion Date. The information and data will be shared on or before the last day of the month following the conclusion of the applicable six (6) month period. IV. JURISDICTION AND COMPLIANCE
11. The Court’s jurisdiction over all individual Defendants, except the Defendant City of New York, shall terminate for all purposes upon payment of the sums set forth in paragraph 16 of this Stipulation.
12. The jurisdiction of this Court over the City’s Injunctive Obligations in this Stipulation shall terminate at the conclusion of twelve (12) months following the Citywide Expansion Date, unless Plaintiffs move pursuant to paragraph 13 of this Stipulation, in which case the Court’s jurisdiction and Defendant City’s Injunctive Obligations for which noncompliance is alleged continue until (a) any such motion is decided; or (b) if any such motion is decided favorably for Plaintiffs, for a maximum of one (1) year after the Termination Date (as defined herein).
13. During the twelve (12) months following the Citywide Expansion Date, if Plaintiffs believe that the City has not complied with any of its Injunctive Obligations under this Stipulation, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify the City’s counsel in writing of the nature and specifics of the alleged failure(s) to comply (“Written Notice”) at least thirty (30) days before any motion is made regarding this Stipulation. Such Written Notice shall be accompanied by copies of all documents, data and/or evidence, including the names of any LEP Individuals, relied upon by Plaintiffs for the claimed violation(s). Unless otherwise resolved, the Parties’
14

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 656
counsel shall meet within the thirty (30) day period following receipt of Written Notice by the City’s counsel to discuss the claimed violation(s) and possible solutions. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days following the City’s counsel’s receipt of Written Notice, Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order for appropriate relief against the City for those Injunctive Obligations for which the City’s non-compliance is timely alleged by Plaintiffs. Any order for additional or appropriate relief cannot extend the original Termination Date for more than one year as provided in paragraph 12.
14. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall not be deemed to have failed to comply with the Injunctive Obligations set forth in the Stipulation for purposes of any motion contemplated in paragraph 13 of this Stipulation unless Plaintiffs can establish that the City’s alleged failure(s) to comply were not de minimis or isolated, but rather were substantial and sufficiently frequent or widespread as to be systemic in nature.
15. Following the termination of the Court’s jurisdiction as set forth in paragraphs 11 and 12, this Stipulation shall be deemed unenforceable as to the City. V. DAMAGES & ATTORNEYS’ FEES:
16. The City of New York, on behalf of all Defendants, agrees to pay Plaintiffs the sum of Two Hundred Ninety-Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars and zero cents ($297,500.00) in full satisfaction of all claims in this action, including claims for damages of any types, costs and expenses. Payment shall be apportioned as follows:
a. Yanahit Padilla-Torres – Forty Five Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($45,000.00);
b. Arlet Macareno – Thirty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($30,000.00); c. Wendy Garcia – Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and zero cents
15

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 657
($7,500.00); d. Lina Carrion – Fifteen Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($15,000.00); e. Silvia Soriano – Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and zero cents
($25,000.00); f. Maria Irma Henriquez – Twenty Thousand Dollars and zero cents
($20,000.00); g. Elena Jimenez – Twenty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($20,000.00); h. Graciela Simbana – Five Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($5,000.00); i. Oumou Sylla – Thirty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($30,000.00); j. Soledad Julia Hilares Huarca de Ruiz – Ten Thousand Dollars and zero
cents ($10,000.00); k. Pema Sherpa – Twenty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($20,000.00); l. Xiao Fan Li – Five Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($5,000.00); m. Sabina Peralta – Twenty Thousand Dollars and zero cents ($20.000.00); n. Leonor Tejada – Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and zero cents
($25,000.00); and o. Maritza Vega – Twenty Thousand Dollars and no cents ($20,000.00). 17. In addition to the amounts set forth in paragraph 16, the City of New York, on behalf of all Defendants, agrees to pay to plaintiffs’ counsel, Legal Services of New York, Inc. and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP the following sums: a. Legal Services of New York, Inc. – Four Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Dollars and zero cents ($415,000.00); and b. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP – Forty-Five Thousand Dollars
16

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 658
and zero cents ($45,000.00). 18. As consideration for the payment of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 16 and 17 of this Stipulation as well as the Injunctive Obligations set forth in this Stipulation and in full satisfaction of all claims in this action of any type, including but not limited to claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and counsel fees and costs, Plaintiffs YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ, GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA, SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI, SABINA PERALTA, LEONOR TEJADA, MARITZA VEGA and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM, individually and collectively, agree to the following:
a. dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all Defendants and to release all Defendants, their successors or assignees, and all past and present officials, employees, representatives, and agents of the City of New York, including the NYPD, from any and all liability, claims, and/or rights of action, whether known or unknown, that Plaintiffs raised or could have raised in the Complaint or any amended complaint in this action based upon or related in any way to the allegations in the Complaint, including any alleged deficiency in Defendants’ policies and practices related to the provision of foreign language access services, alleged national origin discrimination, and/or the allegation that Defendants failed to provide language services to Plaintiffs during interactions with the NYPD, including all claims for costs, expenses and/or fees incurred in connection with this action; and
17

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 659
b. assignment of Plaintiffs’ rights to counsel fees and costs to Legal Services of New York, Inc. and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP.
19. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for the payment of any federal, state and/or local taxes on the amounts specified in paragraph 16 of this Stipulation.
20. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be responsible for the payment of any federal, state and/or local taxes on the amounts specified in paragraph 17 of this Stipulation.
21. Plaintiffs and their counsel will each execute and deliver to Defendants’ counsel, all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, Releases based on the terms of this Stipulation, affidavits of no liens, and/or substitute W-9 forms. The payments set forth above are subject to and conditioned on delivery of such documents to Defendants’ counsel. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
22. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by Defendants that they have in any manner or way violated the rights of Plaintiffs, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, charters, by-laws, rules or regulations 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 or the NYPD.
23. In the event of any change in federal statute or regulation, or state or local statute or regulation, that the City believes changes its responsibilities pursuant to this Stipulation, the City’s counsel shall notify Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing and the Parties shall attempt to come to an agreement as to any modifications of this Stipulation that are warranted by any such changes in federal, state, or local law. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days following the
18

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 660

written notice, Defendants may move this Court for an order for appropriate relief pursuant to

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

24. This Stipulation shall have no precedential value or effect whatsoever and shall

not be cited, used, or admissible in this or any other action or proceeding as evidence or for any

other purpose, except in an action or proceeding to enforce the terms of this Stipulation.

25. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the

City of New York or the NYPD.

26. Nothing in this stipulation shall be deemed to be an admission of any fault or

liability by any of the Defendants.

27. 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 this action shall be

deemed to exist, to bind the Parties hereto, or to vary the terms and conditions contained herein.

28. The Parties further agree that this Stipulation may be executed in counterparts,

and that a facsimile signature shall be deemed valid for all purposes.

29. Any notice, report, or communication required by or made pursuant to this

Stipulation shall be sent by email, or first class mail upon request, to counsel at the addresses

specified below:

Edward Josephson Christine Clarke Legal Services NYC 40 Worth Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 ejosephson@lsnyc.org cclarke@lsnyc.org

Janice Birnbaum Carolyn Kruk Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 jbirnbau@law.nyc.gov ckruk@law.nyc.gov

30. Any Party may change the designated individuals or addresses set forth in this

19

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 81 Filed 05/24/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 661

Stipulation by written notice to the other party. A copy of this notice will be filed on ECF

Dated:

New York, New York
May lY ,2017

LEGAL SERVICES NYC
Edward Josephson, Esq.
Christine Clarke, Esq.
Attomeys for Plaintiffs 40 Worth Street,6th floor
New York, NY 10013
(646) 442-3664

ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the City of New York
Attomey for Defendants
100 Church Street, Room 2-192
NewYork, NY 10007 (2t2) 3s6-0893
ckruk@law.nyc.qov

By:

Bv: C,e^ta*lU*

CaroLvn I(tuk

Rs si stbn/Corporation Counsel

SO ORDERED: s/ MSOKOBRD5E/2R4E/D20: 17
_________________________
MARGO K. BRODIE UnHiotend. MSatargtoesBDroidsietrict Judge
United States District Judge

20

 
 Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 82 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 662

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YANAHIT PADILLA TORRES, ARLET MACARENO, WENDY GARCIA, LINA CARRION, SILVIA SORIANO, MARIA IRMA HENRIQUEZ, ELENA JIMENEZ, GRACIELA SIMBANA, OUMOU SYLLA, SOLEDAD JULIA HILARES HUARCA DE RUIZ, PEMA SHERPA, XIAO FAN LI and the VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM,

No. 13 CV 00076 (MKB)(RER)

Plaintiffs,

v.

(PROPOSED) STIPULATION AND

ORDER OF SETTLEMENT EXTENSION

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, RAYMOND W. KELLY, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his individual and official capacities, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER VINCENZO TRADOLSE, in his individual capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CHRISTOPHER FURDA, in his individual capacity, OFFICER SWEETING, in his individual capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS JOHN/JANE DOES #1 THROUGH #24 in their individual capacities,

Defendants.

RECITALS WHEREAS by Order dated May 24, 2017, the Court endorsed the Stipulation and Order of Settlement (the “Stipulation of Settlement”) in this matter; and WHEREAS the parties agree to extend certain periods in, and the Court’s jurisdiction under the Stipulation of Settlement by a period of six months; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 82 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 663

undersigned, as follows: 1. The following paragraphs within the Stipulation of Settlement are amended to
read as follows:  Paragraph 1.q: “Termination Date” means the date that this Stipulation terminates and the Court’s jurisdiction ends for all purposes, which shall be April 15, 2019, unless Plaintiffs successfully move to extend the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Stipulation. However, if the data scheduled to be provided on March 4, 2019, pursuant to the amended Paragraph 10 below, is not provided timely, the termination date shall be deemed extended by the number of days the report is delayed.  Paragraph 10: During the Effective Period, the NYPD will provide the information and data identified in paragraph 9(b)-(d) of this Stipulation to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 2, 2018; September 3, 2018; and March 4, 2019. These dates may be adjusted by agreement of the parties without approval of the Court.  Paragraph 12: The jurisdiction of this Court over the City’s Injunctive Obligations in this Stipulation shall terminate on April 15, 2019, unless Plaintiffs move pursuant to paragraph 13 of this Stipulation, in which case the Court’s jurisdiction and Defendant City’s Injunctive Obligations for which noncompliance is alleged continue until (a) any such motion is decided; or (b) if any such motion is decided favorably for Plaintiffs, for a maximum of one (1) year after the Termination Date (as defined herein – i.e., if extended for one (1) year, the Stipulation and the Court’s jurisdiction will end on April 15, 2020).

8479347_1.docx

- 2 -

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 82 Filed 07/12/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 664
 Paragraph 13: Between the Citywide Expansion Date and April 15, 2019, if Plaintiffs believe that the City has not complied with any of its Injunctive Obligations under this Stipulation, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall notify the City’s counsel in writing of the nature and specifics of the alleged failure(s) to comply (“Written Notice”) at least thirty (30) days before any motion is made regarding this Stipulation. Such Written Notice shall be accompanied by copies of all documents, data and/or evidence, including the names of any LEP Individuals, relied upon by Plaintiffs for the claimed violation(s). Unless otherwise resolved, the Parties’ counsel shall meet within the thirty (30) day period following receipt of Written Notice by the City’s counsel to discuss the claimed violation(s) and possible solutions. If no resolution is reached within thirty (30) days following the City’s counsel’s receipt of Written Notice, Plaintiffs may move this Court for an order for appropriate relief against the City for those Injunctive Obligations for which the City’s non-compliance is timely alleged by Plaintiffs. Any order for additional or appropriate relief cannot extend the original Termination Date for more than one year as provided in paragraph 12.
2. This Stipulation and Order of Settlement Extension may be executed in counterparts and an emailed or faxed signature is valid for all purposes.

8479347_1.docx

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 3 -

Case 1:13-cv-00076-MKB-RER Document 82 Filed 07/12/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 665

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 1 of 15
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−00076−MKB−RER

CLOSED

Padilla v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Margo K. Brodie Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/04/2013 Date Terminated: 05/24/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Yanahit Padilla Torres

represented by Amy S. Taylor Legal Services for New York City 350 Broadway 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 646−442−3664 Email: ataylor@ls−nyc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson South Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. 105 Court Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 718−237−5538 Email: edwardj@sbls.lsny.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke Legal Sevices NYC 40 Worth Street Suite 606 New York, NY 10013 646−442−3564 Fax: 646−442−3564 Email: cclarke@lsnyc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady PC 600 Fifth Avenue 10th floor New York, NY 10020 212−763−5000 Fax: 212−763−5001 Email: mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nicholas Henry Mindicino Stoll Glickman & Bellina 475 Atlantic Avenue − 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11217 718−852−3710 Fax: 718−852−3586 Email: nmindicino@stollglickman.com TERMINATED: 03/19/2013

Plaintiff Silvia Soriano

represented by Amy S. Taylor (See above for address)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 2 of 15

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Arlet Macareno

represented by Amy S. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lina Carrion

represented by Amy S. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Violence Intervention Program

represented by Amy S. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 3 of 15

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wendy Garcia

represented by Amy S. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward J Josephson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christine Clarke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Luzmina Rodriguez

represented by Terrell Howard McCasland Subin Associates, LLP 150 Broadway, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10038 212−285−3800 Fax: 646−867−8059 Email: tm@subinlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of New York

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum New York City Law Department 100 Church Street Room 2−195 New York, NY 10007 212−356−2085 Fax: (212)788−0940 Email: jbirnbau@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Uriel Benjamin Abt New York City Law Department Office of The Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−356−3533 Fax: (212)788−9776

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 4 of 15

Email: uabt@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk NYC Law Department, General Litigation Division 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−788−0932 Fax: 212−788−0940 Email: ckruk@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant NYC Police Officer Christopher Furda

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John Doe #1−2 TERMINATED: 03/21/2013

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Mayor Michael Bloomberg

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Raymond W. Kelly Commissioner of the New York City Police Department in his individual and official capacities

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant NYC Police Officer Vincenzo Tradolse

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 5 of 15

John/Jane Does 1−6 in their individual capacities

represented by Janice L. Birnbaum (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party United States of America

represented by Alyssa C. Lareau Federal Coordination and Compliance Civil Rights Division Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (NWB) Washington, DC 20530−0001 Email: Alyssa.Lareau@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ameet B. Kabrawala United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 718−254−6001 Fax: 718−254−6076 Email: ameet.kabrawala@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bharathi A. Venkatraman U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Federal Coordination and Compliance Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (NWB) Washington, DC 20530−0001 (202) 616−3925 Email: Bharathi.A.Venkatraman@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kulsoom Naqvi Federal Coordination and Complianpe Civil Rights Division Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW (NWB) Washington,, DC 20530−0001 (202) 514−4069 Email: Kulsoom.naqvi@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/19/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Goldberger United States Attorneys Office Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201−1820 (718)254−6052 Fax: (718)254−6083 Email: Michael.Goldberger@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 6 of 15

01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/04/2013 01/09/2013
02/06/2013 03/11/2013 03/11/2013 03/13/2013 03/14/2013 03/19/2013 03/19/2013 03/21/2013
03/22/2013
03/25/2013 03/28/2013

1 COMPLAINT against Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, The City of New York Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed −No,, filed by Yanahit Padilla. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
FILING FEE: $ 350.00, receipt number 4653053312 (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
2 Summons Issued as to Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, The City of New York. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link:http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Davis, Kimberly) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
4 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Yanahit Padilla. The City of New York waiver sent on 1/10/2013, answer due 3/11/2013. (Mindicino, Nicholas) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
5 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by The City of New York. (Abt, Uriel) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
ORDER granting 5 First Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendant The City of New York answer is due on 3/18/2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 3/11/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/11/2013)
6 NOTICE of Consent to Change Attorney by Edward J Josephson pursuant to Local Rule 1.4 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
7 MOTION to Stay Defendant's Time to Answer by The City of New York. (Abt, Uriel) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
ORDER granting 7 Motion to Stay Defendant's Time to Answer. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 3/19/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
8 ORDER re 6 Notice of Consent to Change Attorney filed by Yanahit Padilla. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 3/19/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Christopher Furda, The City of New York, Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, Vincenzo Tradolse, John/Jane Does 1−6, filed by Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Arlet Macareno, Lina Carrion, Violence Intervention Program, Wendy Garcia.(Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 03/21/2013) (removed and re−docketed due to filer's error by Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
10 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Conference set for 5/1/2013at 10:15 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Plaintiff's counsel to confirm with defendants' counsel that all necessary participants are aware of this conference. Prior to the conference, the parties are to comply with the requirements of Rule 26(f) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. The attached case management plan must be completed and brought to the conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 3/22/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
Incorrect Entry Information: It is SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNSEL to add newly appearing parties upon the filing of an Amended Complaint. The Clerk has added the omitted parties on this occasion. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
11 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Violence Intervention Program (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 03/28/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 7 of 15

04/01/2013 04/01/2013 04/01/2013 04/02/2013
04/26/2013 04/26/2013 04/26/2013 04/30/2013 04/30/2013 05/01/2013 05/20/2013 05/20/2013
06/04/2013 06/11/2013 06/24/2013

12 Amended Summons Issued as to Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Riquelme, Claudia) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Janice L. Birnbaum on behalf of The City of New York (aty to be noticed) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 9 Amended Complaint, and to adjourn the initial conference (docket #10) by The City of New York. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
ORDER granting re 14 MOTION for the Defendant City of New York Extension of Time to File Answer to the Amended Complaint on 5/21/2013. (The 5/1/13 Initial Conference is adjourned to 5/23/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.). No further extensions of defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint, or further adjournments of the initial conference, will be permitted for any reason whatsoever. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 4/2/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. Michael Bloomberg served on 4/5/2013, answer due 4/26/2013. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. Raymond W. Kelly served on 4/5/2013, answer due 4/26/2013. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. Christopher Furda served on 4/11/2013, answer due 5/2/2013. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
18 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 9 Amended Complaint, by Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
ORDER granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants Michael Bloomberg and Raymond W. Kelly answers are due 5/21/2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 4/30/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 04/30/2013)
19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. Vincenzo Tradolse served on 4/25/2013, answer due 5/16/2013. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
20 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,, by Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
ORDER granting 20 Second Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly and The City of New York answers are due on 6/4/2013.; The 5/23/13 Initial Conference is adjourned to 6/25/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 5/20/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
21 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , to Stay Discovery and other relief by Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
22 RESPONSE in Opposition re 21 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , to Stay Discovery and other relief filed by All Plaintiffs. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
23 REPLY in Support re 21 First Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , to Stay Discovery and other relief filed by Michael Bloomberg, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 8 of 15

06/24/2013 06/24/2013 06/25/2013
06/27/2013 06/27/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013 07/01/2013
07/01/2013
07/29/2013 07/29/2013 08/07/2013

SCHEDULING ORDER: Pre Motion Conference is scheduled for July 1, 2013 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 6F North before Judge Margo K. Brodie. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 6/24/2013. (Francis, Ogoro) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
ORDER: Parties to address 23 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery at 6/25/2013 Initial Conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 6/24/2013.(Morales, Luis) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Initial Conference Hearing held on 6/25/2013. Discussions held. The Court informed the parties of his relationship with an attorney for the South Brooklyn legal Services; provided the City an opportunity to object to continued participation in case. The Court denied the request for a stay of discovery. The parties shall submit a Case Management Plan on 6/28/13. The Court will schedule further conferences upon receipt of the Case Management Plan. (Tape #10:18:27−10:58:39.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
24 Letter requesting telephone conference by Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Violence Intervention Program (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
SCHEDULING ORDER re 24 : Status Conference set for 7/1/2013 in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Conference to commence immediately after the parties' conference with Judge Brodie. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 6/27/2013. (Morales, Luis) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew D. Brinckerhoff on behalf of Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Violence Intervention Program (aty to be noticed) (Brinckerhoff, Matthew) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Status Conference held on 7/1/2013. Discussions held. Individual Defendants' to respond to the Complaint by 7/31/13. Case Management Plan entered. (Tape #12:16:19 −12:34:15.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Margo K. Brodie: A pre−motion conference was held on July 1, 2013. Edward Josephson, Amy Taylor, Matthew Brinckerhoff and Jenesa Calvo−Friedman appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Janice Birnbaum appeared on behalf of defendants. The following briefing schedule was established: Defendants will serve their motion by July 31, 2013; Plaintiffs will serve their opposition by September 16, 2013; and Defendants will serve their reply by October 2, 2013. The motion shall be submitted in accordance with the Court's Individual Practices and Rules. (Court Reporter Marie Foley.) (Olson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
26 Case Management Plan: All discovery to be completed on or before 2/28/2014. In person Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/4/2014 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., In person Status Conference set for 10/29/2013 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. See attached for deadlines. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 7/1/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
27 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' motion to dismiss by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
ORDER granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendants' request for an extension of time is granted. Defendants shall serve their motion to dismiss by August 7, 2013; Plaintiffs shall serve their opposition by September 23, 2013; and Defendants shall serve their reply by October 9, 2013. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 7/29/2013. (Olson, Kristin) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
28 Letter advising of the service of Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 08/07/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 9 of 15

09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/10/2013 09/12/2013
09/12/2013 09/12/2013
09/12/2013 09/23/2013 09/30/2013 10/01/2013 10/21/2013 10/22/2013 10/24/2013 11/06/2013

29 Letter MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 9 Amended Complaint, by joining new plaintiff by Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Violence Intervention Program. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Carolyn Elizabeth Kruk on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
31 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
ORDER denying 29 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement; ORDER granting 31 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add additional parties is denied without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiffs' time to add additional parties extended to 9/18/13. Status report on parties' discussions as to addition of plaintiffs due 9/16/13. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 9/12/2013. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
32 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
ORDER granting 32 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement: Stipulation and Order is "so ordered." Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by 9/16/13. The briefing schedule for Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss is established as follows: Defendants will serve their amended motion by 9/23/13; Plaintiffs will serve their opposition by 10/9/13; and Defendants will serve their reply by 10/25/13. The motion shall be submitted in accordance with Judge Brodie's Individual Practices and Rules. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 9/12/2013. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
33 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Complaint against All Defendants, filed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. (Taylor, Amy) (Entered: 09/12/2013)
34 Letter re service of Defendants' motion to dismiss second amended complaint by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
35 First MOTION for Protective Order by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
ORDER granting 35 Motion for Protective Order: Parties' Joint Stipulation and Protective Order is "So Ordered." Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 10/1/2013. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
36 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and joint request to extend discovery by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply and joint request to extend discovery. Responses due by 11/8/2013. Expert designations extended to 2/3/14; rebuttal expert designations extended to 4/4/14. All discovery to be completed by 4/30/14. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 10/22/2013. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings:The 34/14 Final Pretrial Conference is adjourned to 5/7/2014 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr., 10/29/13 Status Conference is adjourned to 3/4/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
37 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, by Michael Bloomberg,

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 10 of 15

11/07/2013 11/13/2013 11/13/2013 11/22/2013
11/22/2013
11/22/2013 11/22/2013 11/23/2013 11/26/2013 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014
02/25/2014 02/26/2014

Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
ORDER granting 37 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply: Response due by 11/15/2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 11/7/2013. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
38 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
ORDER granting 38 Third MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants must serve and file their reply papers in further support of their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint by November 22,2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 11/13/2013. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Certificate of Service) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
40 REPLY in Support re 39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
41 MEMORANDUM in Support Statement of Interest Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed by United States of America. (Kabrawala, Ameet) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
42 Letter enclosing courtesy copy of Statement of Interest, by United States of America (Kabrawala, Ameet) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
43 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 11/23/2013)
44 Letter (cover letter enclosing courtesy copies) by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
45 REQUEST for Production of Documents by Yanahit Padilla Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Taylor, Amy) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to USA's Statement of Interest by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
ORDER re 45 : Proposed Stipulation and Order attached to 45 is "So Ordered." All discovery to be completed by 10/16/2014. The 5/7/2014 Final Pretrial Conference is adjourned until 10/16/2014 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 2/21/2014. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
47 RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to USA's Statement of Interest filed by All Plaintiffs. (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
ORDER granting 46 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Defendants' motion to file a response to the United States' Statement of Interest is granted. Defendants' response shall be filed on or before March 7, 2014. The Court will contact the parties to notify them of an oral argument date in the future. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 2/26/2014. (Ramos, Christopher) (Entered: 02/26/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 11 of 15

03/03/2014 03/06/2014 03/06/2014 03/07/2014 03/11/2014 03/19/2014 03/20/2014 04/25/2014 04/28/2014
05/02/2014 06/03/2014 06/03/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/19/2014 06/20/2014

Set/Reset Hearings: The 3/4/14 Status Conference is adjourned to 7/16/2014 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 03/03/2014)
48 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Defendants' request is granted. Defendants shall file their response to the United States' statement of interest on or before March 11, 2014. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 3/6/2014. (Ramos, Christopher) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Goldberger on behalf of United States of America (aty to be noticed) (Goldberger, Michael) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
50 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 41 Memorandum in Support filed by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing on 39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction: Oral Argument is scheduled for April 29, 2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6F North before Judge Margo K. Brodie. (Francis−McLeish, Ogoro) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
NOTICE of Hearing on 39 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction: Oral Argument is RESCHEDULED for May 1, 2014 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 6F North before Judge Margo K. Brodie. (Francis−McLeish, Ogoro) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
51 Joint MOTION to Adjourn Conference /Argument and for other relief by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
52 STIPULATION and ORDER granting 51 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The Parties' request to adjourn oral argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The parties are encouraged to file a written request for a settlement conference, if they believe it productive to do so. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 4/28/2014. (Ramos, Christopher) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
53 Supplemental COMPLAINT , filed by Wendy Garcia, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Silvia Soriano, Violence Intervention Program. (Taylor, Amy) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
ORDER re 51 Joint Motion to Adjourn Conference. Per the parties' representation, a confidential status update letter was due on or before May 30, 2014. The parties shall deliver said letter by June 4, 2013. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 6/3/2014. (Ramos, Christopher) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
54 Letter (status report) by Yanahit Padilla Torres (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
55 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and proposed stipulation and order by Yanahit Padilla Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
56 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and proposed order by Yanahit Padilla Torres. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
ORDER terminating 56 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 6/19/2014. (Reyes, Ramon) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 12 of 15

06/25/2014 06/27/2014 06/27/2014 07/24/2014 08/14/2014
09/18/2014
10/07/2014 10/08/2014 10/15/2014 12/05/2014 12/08/2014
12/19/2014 12/19/2014

8/7/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Presence of representatives from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice is requested. Proposed extension of discovery will be discussed at the 8/7/2014 Settlement Conference. Discovery is stayed until the 8/7/2014 Settlement Conference. The 7/16/2014 Status Conference is adjourned sine die. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 6/20/2014. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 06/20/2014)
57 NOTICE of Appearance by Alyssa C. Lareau, Kulsoom Naqvi, Bharathi A. Venkatraman on behalf of United States of America (aty to be noticed) (Attachments: # 1 Naqvi, # 2 Venkatraman) (Marziliano, August) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
58 MOTION to Adjourn Conference and re−schedule for August 14, 2014 by United States of America. (Goldberger, Michael) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
ORDER granting 58 Motion to Adjourn Conference. The 8/7/2014 Settlement Conference is adjourned until 8/14/2014 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 6/27/2014. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
59 NOTICE of Change of Firm's Address by Matthew D. Brinckerhoff (Brinckerhoff, Matthew) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 8/14/2014. Counsel present for both sides. Settlement discussions held. Further Settlement Conference set for 12/19/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.) (Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
ORDER: In view of the ongoing settlement discussions between the parties, the pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is marked off the Court's calendar. Either party can move to restore the motion by filing a letter with the Court asking for it to be restored. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/18/2014. (Francis−McLeish, Ogoro) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
60 Letter by Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Stipulation and Order, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint) (Taylor, Amy) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
ORDER re 60 Letter filed by Wendy Garcia, Silvia Soriano, Lina Carrion, Arlet Macareno, Yanahit Padilla Torres: The Proposed Stipulation and Order attached to 60 Letter is "So Ordered." Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 10/8/2014. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
ORDER: The Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/14 is canceled. The parties are next to appear for a settlement conference on 12/19/14 at 11:00 AM, as previously scheduled on 8/14/14. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 10/15/2014. (Yasunaga, Adrienne) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
61 First Motion to Appear by Telephone of DOJ Attorney Bharathi Venkatraman by United States of America. (Goldberger, Michael) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
ORDER granting 61 Motion to Appear by Telephone: Bharathi Venkatraman, Attorney Advisor in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, may attend the 12/19/2014 settlement conference via telephone. Bharathi Venkatraman is directed to call Chambers at 718−613−2120 at the conference's scheduled time. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 12/8/2014. (Stevens, Alexis) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
62 First MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Kulsoom Naqvi by United States of America. (Goldberger, Michael) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 12/19/2014. Discussions held. Further Settlement Conference set for 6/22/2015 at 10:00 AM − 1:00 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 13 of 15

12/19/2014 06/22/2015
07/27/2015
10/20/2015 10/20/2015 11/17/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 01/19/2016
05/03/2016 06/20/2016 06/20/2016
06/21/2016 07/28/2016 07/28/2016

ORDER granting 62 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kulsoom Naqvi terminated. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 12/19/2014. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 6/22/2015. Discussions held. Confidential Status Report is due on 7/24/15. Further Settlement Conference set for 7/27/15 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Tape# not recorded) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 7/27/2015.Discussions held. Further Settlement Conference set for 10/22/15 at 2:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report on 10/19/15 informing Judge Reyes whether the in person conference is necessary. (Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
65 Letter requesting postponement of conference by Yanahit Padilla Torres (Josephson, Edward) ADDED EVENT TYPE: MOTION to Adjourn Conference on 10/20/2015 (Vertus, Miriam). (Entered: 10/20/2015)
ORDER granting 65 Motion to Adjourn Conference; Settlement Conference is adjourned to 12/7/2015 at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 10/20/2015. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar the 12/7/15 Settlement Conference is adjourned to 12/9/2015 at 12:00 Noon in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
66 First MOTION to Adjourn Conference Scheduled for December 9, 2015 by United States of America. (Goldberger, Michael) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
ORDER granting 66 Motion to Adjourn Conference; Settlement Conference is adjourned to 1/19/2016 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 11/19/2015. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 1/19/2016. Discussions held. Further Settlement Conference set for 5/5/2016 at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
Set/Reset Hearings: The parties' fax confidential letter dated 5/2/2016 requesting that the 5/5/16 conference be adjourned is granted. Settlement Conference is adjourned to 6/23/2016 at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
67 STIPULATION of Dismissal on Behalf of Bhishma Yogi by Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Violence Intervention Program (Brinckerhoff, Matthew) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
Set/Reset Hearings: The confidential settlement document faxed to Magistrate Judge Reyes' Chambers on 6/17/2016 requesting that the 6/23/16 conference be adjourned is granted. The settlement conference is rescheduled for 8/3/2016 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
68 STIPULATION AND ORDER. Plaintiff Bhishma Yogi's claims are hereby dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 6/21/2016. (Reyneri, Rafael) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
69 Joint MOTION to Adjourn Conference scheduled for August 3, 2016, to September 8, 2016 by The City of New York. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
ORDER granting 69 Motion to Adjourn Conference; Settlement Conference is adjourned to 9/8/2016 at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 7/28/2016.

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 14 of 15

08/03/2016 08/05/2016 08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/19/2016 09/08/2016
10/25/2016 10/26/2016 11/10/2016 11/14/2016 12/01/2016 12/01/2016 12/12/2016 12/13/2016
01/19/2017
01/27/2017 01/30/2017

(Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
70 Proposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Luzmina Rodriguez. (McCasland, Terrell) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
71 Letter in opposition to request for consolidation by Lina Carrion, Wendy Garcia, Arlet Macareno, Silvia Soriano, Yanahit Padilla Torres, Violence Intervention Program (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
72 RESPONSE in Opposition re 70 Proposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by All Defendants. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
73 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine Clarke on behalf of All Plaintiffs (aty to be noticed) (Clarke, Christine) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
ORDER denying 70 Motion to Consolidate Cases for the reasons stated in Rodriguez v. The City Of New York, No. 16−CV−214. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 8/19/2016. (Reyneri, Rafael) (Entered: 08/19/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 9/8/2016. Discussions held. Status Report on settlement due by 10/28/2016. (Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
74 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Letter by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
ORDER granting 74 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report; Status Report due by 11/14/2016. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 10/26/2016. (Din, Myra) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
75 Letter requesting extension of status report deadline by Yanahit Padilla Torres (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
STATUS REPORT ORDER re 75 Letter filed by Yanahit Padilla Torres. Status Report due by 12/5/2016. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 11/14/2016. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
76 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Letter with the Court re Status of Settlement Efforts by The City of New York. (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
ORDER granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report due by 12/12/2016. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 12/1/2016. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
77 Letter status report on settlement by Yanahit Padilla Torres (Josephson, Edward) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 1/19/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2E North before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. Confidential settlement letters due 1/12, via fax (718)613−2125. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 12/13/2016. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 12/13/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr:Settlement Conference held on 1/19/2017. Plaintiffs present with counsel. Defendants' counsel present. Discussions held. Joint Status Report on settlement to be filed by 1/30/2017.(Tape #not recorded.) (Vertus, Miriam) (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
78 Letter re Informing the Court that a settlement has been reached by The City of New York (Kruk, Carolyn) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
ORDER re 78 Letter filed by The City of New York. Parties to submit a Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal to Judge Margo K. Brodie by 4/27/2017. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr on 1/30/2017. (Vertus, Miriam) (Entered: 01/30/2017)

Case: 1:13-cv-76 As of: 08/20/2018 12:16 PM EDT 15 of 15

04/26/2017 04/26/2017 05/18/2017 05/24/2017 07/12/2018

79 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Settlement Stipulation by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse. (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
ORDER granting 79 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The parties are to submit a stipulation of settlement and dismissal to the Court on or before May 18, 2017. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 4/26/2017. (Hawkins, Salah) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
80 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Michael Bloomberg, Christopher Furda, John Doe #1−2, John/Jane Does 1−6, Raymond W. Kelly, The City of New York, Vincenzo Tradolse (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Birnbaum, Janice) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
81 STIPULATION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned, that this action is settled. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 5/24/2017. (Francis−McLeish, Ogoro) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
82 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT EXTENSION. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 7/11/2018. (Brucella, Michelle) (Entered: 07/12/2018)