Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------)(
LUMUMBA BANDELE, DJIBRIL TOURE AND DAVID FLOYD,

07 Civ. 3339 (MGC)(JCF) (ECFCASE)

Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (Shield #II 092), in his individual and official capacity as an employee of the City of New York Police Department; POLICE OFFICERS JOHN DOES ## I and 2, in their individual and official capacities as employees of the City of New York Police Department,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------)(

COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiffs Lumumba Bandele, Djibril Toure, and David Floyd to seek relieffor the Defendants'violations of their rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the rights secured under the Constitution of the State ofNew York, Article I, Sections 11 and 12 and the common law of the State of New York. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 2. Plaintiffs, community activists, bring this action to challenge violations

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 20
of their constitutional rights to engage in First Amendment protected activities to document, monitor and deter instances of police misconduct through their work as part of the CopWatch program of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, an organization working for self-determination, human rights and freedom for people of African descent. On information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct. Plaintiffs also seek to vindicate their rights to be free of unlawful search, seizure, arrest and use of illegal excessive force by Defendants in retaliation for such activities.
JURISDICTION 3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and (4), as this action seeks redress for the violation ofP1aintiffs' constitutional and civil rights. 4. 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. 5. Plaintiffs further invoke this Court's supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any and all state constitutional and state law claims that are so related to the claims within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or controversy.
2

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 20
VENUE 6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because at least one of the Defendants resides in tbe Southern District.
JURY DEMAND 7. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
NOTICE OF CLAIM 8. Within ninety days after claim arose, Plaintiffs filed Notices of Claim upon Defendant City of New York by delivering copies of the notices to the person designated by law as a person to whom such claims may be served. 9. The Notice of Claim was in writing, sworn to by Plaintiffs and contained the name and address of the Plaintiffs. 10. The Notices of Claim set out the nature of the claim, the time when and the place where and manner by which the claim arose, and the damages and injuries claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. 11. The City of New York has neglected and failed to adjust the claims within the statutory time period.
PARTIES 12. Plaintiffs Lumumba Bande1e ("Bandele"), Djibril Toure ("Toure"), and David Floyd ("Floyd") are African-American citizens of the United States and were, at all times relevant hereto, residents of the State of New York, Kings County.
3

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 4 of 20
13. Defendant City of New York is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and authorized under the laws of the State of New York pursuant to § 431 of its Charter. The City of New York is authorized under the laws of the state of New York to maintain a police department, the New York Police Department ("NYPD") which acts as its agent in the area oflaw enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible. The City assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the employment of police officers.
14. At all relevant times, the City of New York and its NYPD hired, employed, supervised and controlled the individual Defendants.
15. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Stevens ("Stevens"), shield number 11092, is and!or was at all times relevant herein, an officer, employee, and agent of the NYPD, a municipal agency ofthe City. He is duly appointed and acting as a police officer of the NYPD. Stevens is sued in his individual and official capacities.
16. Defendant police officers John Does## 1 and 2 ("Does") are and!or were at all times relevant herein, officers, employees, and agents of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. Officer Does are duly appointed and acting as police officers of the NYPD. Officer Does are sued in their individual and official capacities.
17. Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 were, at all relevant times relevant herein, on duty with the NYPD on February 9, 2005.
18. At all times relevant herein, Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 were acting under the color of state law in the course and scope oftheir duties and functions as agents, employees and officers of the City and/or the NYPD in engaging
4

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 5 of 20
in the conduct described herein. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants have acted for an 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 and incident to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees and agents of the City and/or the NYPD.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 19. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd are African-American males and residents of the State of New York, Kings County. 20. Plaintiffs are members of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement ("MXG"), a community based organization headquartered in Brooklyn, New York which seeks to politically empower the Black community. 21. Among MXG's work is a program called "CopWatch" through which the organization seeks to expose, document and deter instances of police misconduct and/or abuse in the Black community. 22. MXG has trained its members to patrol communities with video cameras to film instances of police abuse, including abuse committed during the course of arrests, among other methods of observing and documenting police misconduct. 23. Members of CopWatch are trained to abide by the law, not to obstruct or to interfere in any manner with police activities, and to remain a lawful distance from any police officers' activities such as stops, detentions and/or arrests.
5

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 6 of 20
24. On February 9, 2005 at approximately 12:15 a.m., Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd were participating in CopWatch. They were riding in a vehicle near the intersection of Greene Street and Throop Avenue in Brooklyn when they observed a number ofNYPD police officers and police cars.
25. Upon exiting their car, Plaintiffs learned that the police were in the process of arresting two people.
26. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd stood on the public sidewalk and began videotaping the scene. They remained, at all times, a lawful distance from the officers and the individuals being arrested and did not interfere with the arrests.
27. Once the arrestees were secured by the officers, Defendant Stevens approached Plaintiffs and ordered them to leave the area. Stevens could clearly see that Plaintiffs were observing, documenting and videotaping the officers' actions. Plaintiffs complied, even though the order was unlawful, and backed up from the scene ofthe arrests. Their video camera, however, continued to operate.
28. Incensed because Plaintiffs continued to videotape and document Defendants' Stevens and Does' actions, Defendant Stevens, in retaliation, pushed Plaintiffs Bandele and Floyd and knocked their video camera, and Floyd, to the ground. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs' camera was knocked down and broken.
29. Defendants Officer Does## 1 and 2 joined Defendant Stevens in conducting an arrest of Plaintiffs and assisted in placing all three activists into custody. Defendant Does struck each Plaintiffs as he was placed into custody.
6

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 7 of 20
30. At all times during the encounter with Defendants Stevens and Does## 1 and 2, Plaintiffs Bandele, Floyd and Toure acted in a lawful manner. Plaintiffs did not resist their illegal arrests in any manner. Plaintiffs Bandele, Floyd and Toure were initially charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstruction of governmental administration. These charges were amended to resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration. Toure was also charged with assault in the third degree.
31. Plaintiffs were processed and held in jail until their arraignment in Brooklyn Criminal Court approximately 24 hours after their arrests. All were released on their own recognizance.
32. All criminal complaints, allegations and charges were sworn to under oath by Defendant Stevens as true, even though he knew them to be false.
33. On July 17, 2006, all charges were dismissed, with prejudice, on the motion of the District Attorney of Kings County.
34. The Plaintiffs were each required to appear in court on more then ten occasions related to the false criminal charges against them. They incurred legal and other expenses as a result of these wrongful arrest and prosecutions.
35. At all times herein, the individual Defendants had no cause, let alone probable cause or reasonable suspicion, to arrest, exercise excessive force, charge and detain Plaintiffs. Their actions were based on malice and bad faith and were supported by the false statements made by the Defendants under oath.
7

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 8 of 20
36. The conduct of the individual Defendants in restraining, arresting, striking, threatening and prosecuting the Plaintiffs proximately caused physical, emotional and financial injury to them, as well as serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, shock, fright, physical pain, humiliation, embarrassment and deprivation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd suffered the trauma, debasement and humiliation as a result of being publicly arrested without any cause, and assaulted, unlawfully imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted.
37. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants acted intentionally, willfully, maliciously, negligently, and with reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' rights and physical and mental well-being by arresting, imprisoning and prosecuting Plaintiffs.
38. The actions of the individual Defendants, as set forth herein, were the result of the failure of the City of New York Police Department's failure to properly train, supervise and discipline its officers, including Defendants Stevens and Does 1#1 1 and 2. This failure to train, supervise and discipline is a consequence of the deliberate policies and practices of the Defendant City of New York and its NYPD. These policies and practices are in part responsible for the unconstitutional, wrongful, deliberate, malicious, negligent, careless and intentional actions of the individual Defendants.
39. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City of New York, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de
8

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 9 of 20
facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights which caused the violation of their rights.
40. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
41. The constitutional abuses and violations by Defendant City of New York, through the actions of its NYPD and Defendant Does ## 1 and 2, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant City of New York, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the City of New York.
42. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct.
43. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with 9

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 10 of 20
the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
44. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights have been violated which has caused them to suffer physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
45. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such constitutional abuses.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and First and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2
46. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.
47. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the individual Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution. The individual Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to assembly, speech and
10

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 11 of 20
association by unlawfully denying their right to assemble lawfully in public fora; terminating their lawful assembly; subjecting them to false arrest and illegal excessive force; maliciously prosecuting them to deter the exercise of their First Amendment rights; and interfering with and/or terminating their lawful protected activities of observing and documenting police conduct in a public forum. Defendants' actions were taken in retaliation for Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment rights.
48. As a consequence of the individual Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, assembly and association. Plaintiffs have fear and apprehension that they will, again, be subject to similar unlawful acts by Defendants done for the purpose oflimiting and preventing their First Amendment protective activities.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the individual Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Doe ## 1 and 2 50. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein. 51. The acts of the individual Defendants, under color of state law, in arresting Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd, verbally abusing Plaintiffs, and in physically assaulting Plaintiffs were racially motivated, undertaken without lawful justification, taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights, and were designed to,
II

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 12 of 20
and did, cause specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Through these actions, Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution.
52. As a consequence of the individual Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered violations of their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs have fear and apprehension that they will, again, be subject to similar unlawful acts by Defendants.
53. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 54. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs I through 53 as if fully set forth herein. 55. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under
12

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 13 of 20
the United States Constitution. 56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions,
Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 57. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs I through 56 as if fully set forth herein. 58. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from excessive force in the course of an arrest as required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the individual Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution. 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 60. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs I through 59 as if fully set forth herein.
13

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 14 of 20
61. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law, Defendants are liable to each Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation, of his constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
62. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, with malice and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. The prosecution by Defendants of each Plaintiff constituted malicious prosecution in that there was no basis for the Plaintiffs' arrest, yet Defendants continued with the prosecutions, which were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor.
63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens and Does ## 1 and 2 64. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 as if fully set forth herein. 65. By their conduct, as described herein, Defendants are liable to each plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation, under color of state law, of the constitutional right to be free from any deprivation of liberty without due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions,
14

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 15 of 20
Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Monell Claim) 67. Plaintiff repeats andre-alleges by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth herein. 68. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City of New York, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights. 69. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 70. The constitutional abuses and violations by Defendant City of New York, through the actions of its Police Department and Defendant Does #1 and 2, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant City of New York, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to
15

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 16 of 20
adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the City of New York.
71. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct.
72. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
73. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights have been violated which has caused them to suffer physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
74. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such constitutional abuses.
16

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 17 of 20
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Article I, Section 11 of New York State Constitution 75. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 as if fully set forth herein 76. The acts of Defendants, acting under color oflaw, in arresting Plaintiffs and in physically assaulting Plaintiffs were racially motivated and were done without lawful justification, and were designed to and did cause specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights to equal protection as guaranteed by Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution ofthe State of New York. 77. The foregoing acts and conduct of Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiffs and violated their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State ofNew York.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Article I, Section 12 of New York State Constitution 78. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth herein. 79. The acts of Defendants, acting under color of law, in subjecting Plaintiffs to unlawful search and seizure, arrest and excessive force by physically assaulting Plaintiffs were done without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and were designed to, and did cause, specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of New York.
17

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 18 of 20
80. The foregoing acts and conduct of Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiffs and violated their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of New York.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Malicious Prosecution 81. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege by reference paragraphs 1 through 80 as if fully set forth herein. 82. By their conduct, as described herein, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for having committed malicious prosecution under the laws of the State of New York. 83. Defendants maliciously commenced criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, charging each of them with resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration. PlaintiffToure was additionally charged with assault in the third degree. Defendants falsely and without probable cause charged Plaintiffs with violations of the laws of the State of New York. 84. The commencement and continuation of the criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs was malicious and without probable cause. 85. All charges were terminated in Plaintiffs' favor. 86. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and employees were responsible for the malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs. Defendant City of New York, as an employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 87. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority stated above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged herein.
18

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 19 of 20
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Respondeat Superior)
88. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs I through 87 as if fully set forth herein.
89. The conduct of Defendants Stevens and Doe ##I and 2 occurred while they were on duty and in unifonn, in and during the course and scope of their duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and while they were acting as agents and employees of the Defendant City of New York. Defendant City of New York is liable to Plaintiffs under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: a. A declaration that Defendants' conduct violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Plaintiffs' rights under the New York State Constitution and state common law in the manners alleged herein, upon consideration of the evidence adduced at trial or otherwise; b. A mandatory injunction requiring that Defendants possessing any arrest information arising from the actions complained of herein shall collect and deliver to the Plaintiffs all such records and expunge or delete all such information from their records; c. An injunction enjoining Defendants from engaging in conduct to unlawfully disrupt, disperse, interfere with or prevent the lawful First Amendment activities explained of herein; d. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages against the Defendants,
19

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 1 Filed 04/26/07 Page 20 of 20

including, but not limited to any emotional distress, recompensable costs related to

criminal defenses, and any other compensatory damages as permitted by law and

according to proof at trial;

e. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages;

f.

Award attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

g. Award costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and,

h. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate

and equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the

interests ofjustice.

Dated: April 26, 2007

Respectfully Submitted,

Robert J. Boyle (RB-3568) LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. BOYLE 350 Broadway, Suite 308 New York, NY 10013 (212)431-0229 (212) 431-0107 (fax) Rboyle6416@aol.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
20

 
 Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------){
LUMUMBA BANDELE, DJIBRlL TOURE and DAVID FLOYD,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (Shield #II 092), in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERlCK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAYIN, in his individual and official capacity; and NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity;
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------){

07 Civ. 3339 (MGC) AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION I. This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiffs Lurnurnba Bandele, Djibril Toure, and David Floyd to seek relief for the Defendants' violations of their rights secured by the Civil Rights Act of and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the rights secured under the Constitution of the State of New York, Article I, Sections II and 12 and the common law of the State of New York. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just. 2. Plaintiffs, community activists, bring this action to challenge violations of their constitutional rights to engage in First Amendment protected activities to document, monitor and

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 20
deter instances of police misconduct through their work as part of the Cop-Watch program of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, an organization working for self-determination, human rights and freedom for people of African descent. On information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct. Plaintiffs also seek to vindicate their rights to be free of unlawful search, seizure, arrest and use of illegal excessive force by Defendants in retaliation for such activities.
JURISDICTION 3. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and (4), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional and civil rights. 4. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal RuJes of Civil Procedure. 5. Plaintiffs further invoke this Court's supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), over any and all state constitutional and state Jaw claims that are so related to the claims within the original jurisdiction ofthis Court that they form part of the same case or controversy.
VENUE
6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b) and (c) because at least one of the Defendants resides in the Southern District.
2

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 20
JURY DEMAND 7. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action on each and every one of their claims.
NOTICE OF CLAIM 8. Within ninety days after claim arose, Plaintiffs filed Notices of Claim upon Defendant City ofNew York by delivering copies ofthe notices to the person designated by law as a person to whom such claims may be served. 9. The Notice of Claim was in writing, sworn to by Plaintiffs and contained the name and address of the Plaintiffs. I0. The Notices of Claim set out the nature of the claim, the time when and the place where and manner by which the claim arose, and the damages and injuries claimed to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. 11. The City of New York has neglected and failed to adjust the claims within the statutory time period.
PARTIES 12. Plaintiffs Lumumba Bande1e ("Bandele"), Djibril Toure ("Toure"), and David Floyd ("Floyd") are African-American citizens of the United States and were, at all times relevant hereto, residents of the State of New York, Kings County. 13. Defendant City of New York is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and authorized under the laws of the State of New York pursuant to § 431 of its Charter. The City of New York is authorized under the laws of the state of New York to maintain a police department, the New York Police Department ("NYPD") which acts as its agent in the area of law
3

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 4 of 20
enforcement and for which it is ultimately responsible. The City assumes the risks incidental to the maintenance of a police force and the employment of police officers.
14. At all relevant times, the City of New York and its NYPD hired, employed, supervised and controlled the individual Defendants.
15. Defendant Police Officer Thomas Stevens ("Stevens"), Shield Number 11092, is and/or was at all times relevant herein, an officer, employee, and agent of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. He is duly appointed and acting as a police officer ofthe NYPD. Stevens is sued in his individual and official capacities.
16. Defendant Police Officer Carlos Vega ("Vega"), is and/or was at all times relevant herein, an officer, employee, and agent of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. He is duly appointed and acting as a police officer of the NYPD. Vega is sued in his individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant Police Officer Erick Nolan ("Nolan"), is and/or was at all times relevant herein, an officer, employee, and agent of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. He is duly appointed and acting as a police officer of the NYPD. Nolan is sued in his individual and official capacities.
18. Defendant Police Sgt. Seamus Lavin ("Lavin") , is and/or was at all times relevant herein, an officer, employee, and agent of the NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. Lavin is duly appointed and acting as a police officer of the NYPD. Lavin is sued in his individual and official capacities.
19. Defendant Officer Sgt. Holt ("Holt") is and/or were at all times relevant herein, officers, employees, and agents ofthe NYPD, a municipal agency of the City. Holt is duly
4

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 5 of 20
appointed and acting as a police officer of the NYPD. Officer Holt is sued in his individual and official capacities.
20. All named Defendant Officers were, at all relevant times relevant herein, on duty with the NYPD on February 9, 2005.
21. At all times relevant herein, all named Defendant Police Officers were acting under the color of state law in the course and scope of their duties and functions as agents, employees and officers of the City and/or the NYPD in engaging in the conduct described herein. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants have acted for an 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 and incident to the lawful pursuit of their duties as officers, employees and agents of the City and/or the NYPD.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 22. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd are African-American males and residents of the State ofNew York, Kings County. 23. Plaintiffs are members of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement ("MXG"), a community based organization headquartered in Brooklyn, New York which seeks to politically empower the Black community. 24. Among MXG's work is a program called "CopWatch" through which the organization seeks to expose, document and deter instances of police misconduct and/or abuse in the Black community. 25. MXG has trained its members to patrol communities with video cameras to film instances of police abuse, including abuse committed during the course of arrests, among other methods of observing and documenting police misconduct.
5

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 6 of 20
26. Members of Cop-Watch are trained to abide by the law, not to obstruct or to interfere in any manner with police activities, and to remain a lawful distance from any police officers' activities such as stops, detentions and/or arrests.
27. On February 9, 2005 at approximately 12:15 a.m., Plaintiffs Bande1e, Toure and Floyd were participating in Cop-Watch. They were riding in a vehicle near the intersection of Greene Street and Throop Avenue in Brooklyn when they observed a number ofNYPD police officers and police cars.
28. Upon exiting their car, Plaintiffs learned that the police were in the process of arresting two people.
29. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd stood on the public sidewalk and began videotaping the scene. They remained, at all times, a lawful distance from the officers and the individuals being arrested and did not interfere with the arrests.
30. Once the arrestees were secured by the officers, Defendant Stevens approached Plaintiffs and ordered them to leave the area. Stevens could clearly see that Plaintiffs were observing, documenting and videotaping the officers' actions. Plaintiffs complied, even though the order was unlawful, and backed up from the scene of the arrests. Their video camera, however, continued to operate.
31. Incensed because Plaintiffs continued to videotape and document Defendants' Stevens and other officers actions, Defendant Stevens, in retaliation, pushed Plaintiffs Bandele and Floyd and knocked their video camera, and Floyd, to the ground. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs' camera was knocked down and broken.
6

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 7 of 20
32. Other named Defendant officers joined Defendant Stevens in conducting an arrest of Plaintiffs and assisted in placing all three activists into custody. Other named Defendant Officers struck each Plaintiffs as he was placed into custody.
33. At all times during the encounter with Defendants Stevens and all other named Defendant police officers, Plaintiffs Bandele, Floyd and Toure acted in a lawful manner. Plaintiffs did not resist their illegal arrests in any manner. Plaintiffs Bandele, Floyd and Toure were initially charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstruction of governmental administration. These charges were amended to resisting arrest and obstruction of goverrnnental administration. Toure was also charged with assault in the third degree.
34. Plaintiffs were processed and held in jail until their arraignment in Brooklyn Criminal Court approximately 24 hours after their arrests. All were released on their own recognizance.
35. All criminal complaints, allegations and charges were sworn to under oath by Defendant Stevens as true, even though he knew them to be false.
36. On July 17, 2006, all charges were dismissed, with prejudice, on the motion of the District Attorney of Kings County.
37. The Plaintiffs were each required to appear in court on more then ten occasions related to the false criminal charges against them. They incurred legal and other expenses as a result of these wrongful arrest and prosecutions.
38. At all times herein, the individual Defendants had no cause, let alone probable cause or reasonable suspicion, to arrest, exercise excessive force, charge and detain Plaintiffs. Their actions were based on malice and bad faith and were supported by the false statements made by the Defendants under oath.
7

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 8 of 20
39. The conduct of the individual Defendants in restraining, arresting, striking, threatening and prosecuting the Plaintiffs proximately caused physical, emotional and financial injury to them, as well as serious physical and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, shock, fright, physical pain, humiliation, embarrassment and deprivation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd suffered the trauma, debasement and humiliation as a result of being publicly arrested without any cause, and assaulted, unlawfully imprisoned and maliciously prosecuted.
40. At all times relevant herein, the individual Defendants acted intentionally, willfully, maliciously, negligently, and with reckless disregard for and deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' rights and physical and mental well-being by arresting, imprisoning and prosecuting Plaintiffs.
41. The actions of the individual Defendants, as set forth herein, were the result of the failure of the City of New York Police Department's failure to properly train, supervise and discipline its officers, including Defendants Stevens and all other named defendant Police Officers. This failure to train, supervise and discipline is a consequence of the deliberate policies and practices of the Defendant City of New York and its NYPD. These policies and practices are in part responsible for the unconstitutional, wrongful, deliberate, malicious, negligent, careless and intentional actions of the individual Defendants.
42. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City of New York, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights which caused the violation of their rights.
43. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the
8

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 9 of 20
specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
44. The constitutional abuses and violations by Defendant City of New York, through the actions of its NYPD and all other named Defendant police officers, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant City of New York, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the City of New York.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct.
46. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
47. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights have been violated which has caused them to suffer physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and
9

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 10 of 20
embarrassment. 48. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable
harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and/or customs which have directly and proximately caused such constitutional abuses.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and First and Fourteenth Amendments
By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens, Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt
49. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 as if fully set forth herein.
50. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to freedom of speech, assembly and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the individual Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution. The individual Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to assembly, speech and association by unlawfully denying their right to assemble lawfully in public fora; terminating their lawful assembly; subjecting them to false arrest and illegal excessive force; maliciously prosecuting them to deter the exercise oftheir First Amendment rights; and interfering with and/or terminating their lawful protected activities of observing and documenting police conduct in a public forum. Defendants' actions were taken in retaliation for Plaintiffs exercising their First Amendment rights.
51. As a consequence of the individual Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, assembly and
10

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 11 of 20
association. Plaintiffs have fear and apprehension that they will, again, be subject to similar unlawful acts by Defendants done for the purpose of limiting and preventing their First Amendment protective activities.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the individual Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt 53. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 52 as if fully set forth herein. 54. The acts of the individual Defendants, under color of state law, in arresting Plaintiffs Bandele, Toure and Floyd, verbally abusing Plaintiffs, and in physically assaulting Plaintiffs were racially motivated, undertaken without lawful justification, taken with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights, and were designed to, and did, cause specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Through these actions, Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution. 55. As a consequence of the individual Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered violations of their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs have fear and apprehension that they will, again, be subject to similar unlawful acts by Defendants. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs
11

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 12 of 20
have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt 57. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs I through 56 as if fully set forth herein. 58. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and arrest without reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution. 59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt 60. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set forth herein. 61. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs of their rights to be free from excessive force in the course of an arrest as required by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the individual Defendants are liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of rights secured under the United States Constitution.
12

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 13 of 20
62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt 63. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth herein. 64. By their conduct, as described herein, and acting under color of state law, Defendants are liable to each Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation, of his constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 65. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly, with malice and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights. The prosecution by Defendants of each Plaintiff constituted malicious prosecution in that there was no basis for the Plaintiffs' arrest, yet Defendants continued with the prosecutions, which were resolved in Plaintiffs' favor. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments By All Plaintiffs Against Defendants Stevens Vega, Nolan, Lavin and Holt 67. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 66 as if fully set forth herein.
13

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 14 of 20
68. By their conduct, as described herein, Defendants are liable to each plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation, under color of state law, of the constitutional right to be free from any deprivation ofliberty without due process oflaw under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages including, physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Monell Claim)
70. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth herein.
71. At all relevant times herein, Defendant City of New York, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.
72. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
73. The constitutional abuses and violations by Defendant City of New York, through the actions of its Police Department and all named Defendants, were and are directly and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant City of New York, including the failure: (a) to adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing
14

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 15 of 20
to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and, instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the City of New York.
74. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of New York has, acting through its NYPD, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto policy, practice, and!or custom of unlawfully interfering with and!or arresting, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, individuals who exercise their rights under the First Amendment by engaging in monitoring and documenting police activities and/or misconduct.
75. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
76. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights have been violated which has caused them to suffer physical, mental and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
77. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and will suffer serious and irreparable harm to their constitutional rights unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing their unlawful policies, practices, and!or customs which have directly and proximately caused such constitutional abuses.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Article I, Section 11 of New York State Constitution
15

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 16 of 20
78. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth herein
79. The acts of Defendants, acting under color oflaw, in arresting Plaintiffs and in physically assaulting Plaintiffs were racially motivated and were done without lawful justification, and were designed to and did cause specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation oftheir Constitutional rights to equal protection as guaranteed by Article I, Section II of the Constitution of the State ofNew York.
80. The foregoing acts and conduct of Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiffs and violated their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of New York.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Article I, Section 12 of New York State Constitution 81. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs 1 through 80 as if fully set forth herein. 82. The acts of Defendants, acting under color of law, in subjecting Plaintiffs to unlawful search and seizure, arrest and excessive force by physically assaulting Plaintiffs were done without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and were designed to, and did cause, specific and serious bodily harm, pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs in violation of their Constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of New York. 83. The foregoing acts and conduct of Defendants were a direct and proximate cause of injury and damage to Plaintiffs and violated their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution ofthe State of New York.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF State Common Law Malicious Prosecution
16

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 17 of 20
84. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege by reference paragraphs l through 83 as if fully set forth herein.
85. By their conduct, as described herein, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for having committed malicious prosecution under the laws of the State of New York.86.
Defendants maliciously commenced criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs, charging each of them with resisting arrest and obstruction of governmental administration. Plaintiff Toure was additionally charged with assault in the third degree. Defendants falsely and without probable cause charged Plaintiffs with violations of the laws of the State of New York.
87. The commencement and continuation of the criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs was malicious and without probable cause.
88. All charges were terminated in Plaintiffs' favor. 89. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and employees were responsible for the malicious prosecution of Plaintiffs. Defendant City of New York, as an employer of the individual Defendants, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 90. As a direct and proximate result of the misconduct and abuse of authority stated above, Plaintiffs sustained the damages alleged herein.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Respondeat Superior)
91. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 90 as if fully set forth herein. 92. The conduct of Defendants Stevens and Doe ##1 and 2 occurred while they were on duty and in uniform, in and during the course and scope of their duties and functions as New York City Police Officers and while they were acting as agents and employees of the Defendant
17

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 18 of 20

City of New York. Defendant City of New York is liable to Plaintiffs under the common law

doctrine of respondeat superior. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

a. A declaration that Defendants' conduct violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Plaintiffs' rights under the New York State

Constitution and state common law in the manners alleged herein, upon consideration of the

evidence adduced at trial or otherwise;

b. A mandatory injunction requiring that Defendants possessing any arrest

information arising from the actions complained of herein shall collect and deliver to the

Plaintiffs all such records and expunge or delete all such information from their records;

c. An injunction enjoining Defendants from engaging in conduct to unlawfully

disrupt, disperse, interfere with or prevent the lawful First Amendment activities explained of herein;

d. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages against the Defendants, including, but

not limited to any emotional distress, recompensable costs related to criminal defenses, and any other compensatory damages as permitted by law and according to proof at trial;

e. Award Plaintiffs punitive damages;

f.

Award attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

g. Award costs of suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and,

h. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and

equitable, including injunctive and declaratory relief as may be required in the interests of justice.

18

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 19 of 20

Dated: February 29, 2008

Respectfully Submitted,

Kamau Karl Franklin (KF-6837) Andrea Costello (AC-6197) CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614-6464 (212) 614-6499 (fax) kfranklin@ccr-ny.org acostello@ccr-ny.org

Robert J. Boy e (RB-3568) LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. BOYLE 350 Broadway, Suite 308 New York, NY 10013 (212) 431-0229 (212) 431-0107 (fax) Rboyle6416@aol.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

19

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 12 Filed 02/29/08 Page 20 of 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that on this 291h day of February, 2008, a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint was furnished by U.S. First Class Mail to the following counsel for Defendants:
Linda Donohue, Assistant Corporation Counsel Corporation Counsel ofNew York Attorney for Defendants 100 Church Street, Room 3-209 New York, NY 10007
Kamau Karl Franklin
20

 
 Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 19 Filed 09/22/08 Page 1 of 5

UNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOCUhfCNT F-LEC~~OK~-y

-

....--------------------------X--------------------------

LUMUMBA BANDELE. DJIBRIL TOURE and DAVID FLOYD,

Plaintiffs,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW Y O N CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD #11092), in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVIN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity,

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
07 CV 3339 (MGC)

Defendants

WHEREAS, plaintiffs originally commenced this action in the Southern District of New York on April 26, 2007, by filing a complaint alleging, inter alia: violations of Title 42
USC S 1983 and state law rights; and
WHEREAS, defendants have denied any and all liability arising out of plaintiffs' allegations; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation, without further proceedings and without admitting any fault or liability; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs have authorized counsel to settle this matter on the terms set forth below;

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 19 Filed 09/22/08 Page 2 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
1. The above-referenced action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amounts specified in paragraphs "2" through "4" below.
2. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff LUMUMBA BANDELE the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the disnlissal of all the claims against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD #11092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVTN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLlCE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
3 . Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff DJIBRIL TOURE the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for thc payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all the claims against the defendants

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 19 Filed 09/22/08 Page 3 of 5
ClTY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLlCE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD #I 1092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK ClTY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVIN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK ClTY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
4. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff DAVID FLOYD the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all the claims against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD #I 1092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK ClTY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVIN, in his individual and official capacity: NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 19 Filed 09/22/08 Page 4 of 5
this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
5. Each plaintiff shall execute and deliver to defendants' attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a General Release based on the terms of respective paragraphs 2 through 4 above and an Affidavit of No Liens.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by the defendants that they have in any manner or way violated plaintiffs' rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or 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. This stipulation and settlement shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to. any other litigation or settlement negotiations.
7. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or'practice of the City of New York or any agency thereof.
8. This Stipulation and Order 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 and Order regarding the subject matter of

Case 1:07-cv-03339-MGC Document 19 Filed 09/22/08 Page 5 of 5

the instant proceeding shall be deemed to exist; or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms

and conditions contained herein

Dated:

New York, New York September 10,2008

Karnau Karl Franklin, Esq. Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway New York, New York 10012

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorney for Defendants 100 Church Street, Room 3-150 New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-0892

By: Kamau Karl Franklin

d ) L ,'*-, 4'

By: Y,

. L;

.... .-\

Linda Donahue-

Assistant Corporation Counsel

SO ORDERED:

 
 Case: 1:07-cv-03339-MGC As of: 09/22/2013 09:04 PM EDT 1 of 5

U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:07−cv−03339−MGC

CLOSED, ECF

Bandele et al v. The City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/26/2007 Date Terminated: 09/22/2008 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Lumumba Bandele

represented by Andrea Hope Costello Florida Institutional Legal Services 14260 W. Newberry Road #412 Newberry, Fl 32669 352−375−2494 Fax: 352−331−5202 Email: ac@justiceonline.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karl Ferdinand Franklin Law Office of Karl Franklin 666 Broadway 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 614−6464 Fax: (212) 614−6499 Email: karlfranklin@ccr−ny.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Boyle Robert J Boyle 299 Broadway Suite 806 New York, NY 10007 (212) 431−0229 Fax: (212) 431−0101 Email: rjboyle55@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Djibril Toure

represented by Andrea Hope Costello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Karl Ferdinand Franklin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert J. Boyle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Floyd

represented by

Case: 1:07-cv-03339-MGC As of: 09/22/2013 09:04 PM EDT 2 of 5
Andrea Hope Costello (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karl Ferdinand Franklin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert J. Boyle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Police Officer Thomas Stevens Shield #11092, in his individual and official capacity as an employee of the City of New York Police Department
Defendant Police Officers John Doe # 1 in their individual and official capacity as an employee of the City of New York Police Department TERMINATED: 02/29/2008 Defendant Police Officer John Doe # 2 in their individual and official capacity as an employee of the City of New York Police Department TERMINATED: 02/29/2008 Defendant

represented by Rachel Amy Seligman New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0784 Fax: (212) 788−9776 Email: rseligma@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Linda Donahue New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212)−788−0892 Fax: (212)−788−9776 Email: ldonahue@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rachel Amy Seligman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Linda Donahue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:07-cv-03339-MGC As of: 09/22/2013 09:04 PM EDT 3 of 5

Police Officer Carlos Vega in his individual and official capacity

represented by Linda Donahue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NYC Police Officer Erick Nolan in his individual and official capacity

represented by Linda Donahue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NYC Police Sergeant Seamus Lavin in his individual and official capacity

represented by Linda Donahue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
NYC Police Sergeant Holt in his individual and official capacity

represented by Linda Donahue (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/26/2007
04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/26/2007 07/13/2007
07/16/2007 09/11/2007
10/29/2007
10/31/2007
11/30/2007 12/11/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against The City of New York, Thomas Stevens, John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 613359)Document filed by David Floyd, Lumumba Bandele, Djibril Toure.(tro) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2007 (Becerra, Maribel). (Entered: 04/26/2007)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to The City of New York, Thomas Stevens, John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2. (tro) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
Magistrate Judge James C. Francis is so designated. (tro) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
Case Designated ECF. (tro) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
2 STIPULATION, that the time for defendant City of NY to answer the complaint is enlarged to 9/12/07. The City of New York answer due 9/12/2007. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 7/12/07) (cd) Modified on 7/16/2007 (Daniec, Chris). (Entered: 07/16/2007)
3 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Robert J. Boyle on behalf of all plaintiffs. New Address: Robert J. Boyle, 299 Broadway, Suite 806, New York, New York, USA 10007, 212−431−0229. (Boyle, Robert) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
4 STIPULATION: the time for defendant City of New York to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to 10/29/07. The City of New York answer due 10/29/2007. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 9/11/07) (db) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
5 STIPULATION: the time for defendant City of New York to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to 11/30/07. The City of New York answer due 11/30/2007. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 10/29/07) (db) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Complaint,. The City of New York served on 6/22/2007, answer due 11/30/2007; Thomas Stevens served on 6/28/2007, answer due 7/18/2007; John Doe # 1 served on 6/22/2007, answer due 7/12/2007; John Doe # 2 served on 6/22/2007, answer due 7/12/2007. Service was accepted by Madelyn Santana; Sgt. Horvath; Sgt. Kaszovitz. Document filed by Lumumba Bandele. (Franklin, Karl) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
7 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by The City of New York, Thomas Stevens.(Seligman, Rachel) (Entered: 11/30/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 12/11/2007. (dle) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

Case: 1:07-cv-03339-MGC As of: 09/22/2013 09:04 PM EDT 4 of 5

12/21/2007
12/31/2007 02/11/2008 02/22/2008 02/29/2008
02/29/2008
03/04/2008 03/20/2008 04/10/2008
04/28/2008 08/05/2008 08/19/2008 09/22/2008

8 ORDER CASE ELIGIBLE FOR MEDIATION...the above−entitled action is eligible for mediation, pursuant to the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan. This action is eligible for mediation subject to the limitations and restrictions as noted: ALL ISSUES ARE ELIGIBLE. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 12/20/07) (tro) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Linda Donahue on behalf of The City of New York, Thomas Stevens (Donahue, Linda) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
10 STIPULATION: that the time for plaintiff's attorneys to amend the complaint is enlarged to 2/29/08. ( Amended Pleadings due by 2/29/2008.) (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 2/8/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
11 NOTICE SELECTING MEDIATOR − Notice of selection of mediator.(sc) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
12 AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against Carlos Vega, Erick Nolan, Seamus Lavin, Holt, The City of New York, Thomas Stevens. Document filed by David Floyd, Lumumba Bandele, Djibril Toure. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by David Floyd, Djibril Toure, Lumumba Bandele.(dle) (dle). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Kamau Karl Franklin, Andrea Costello, Robert J. Boyle for noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y. Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E−MAIL the PDF for Document 12 Amended Complaint, to: case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (dle) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
13 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. The City of New York served on 2/29/2008, answer due 3/20/2008. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Lumumba Bandele. (Franklin, Karl) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
14 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by The City of New York, Thomas Stevens.(Donahue, Linda) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
15 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Thomas Stevens served on 4/9/2008, answer due 4/29/2008; Carlos Vega served on 4/9/2008, answer due 4/29/2008; Erick Nolan served on 4/9/2008, answer due 4/29/2008; Seamus Lavin served on 4/9/2008, answer due 4/29/2008; Holt served on 4/9/2008, answer due 4/29/2008. Service was accepted by Lt. Schneider, Sgt. Medina, Sgt. Welsch. Document filed by Lumumba Bandele. (Franklin, Karl) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
16 ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Carlos Vega, Erick Nolan, Seamus Lavin, Holt. Related document: 12 Amended Complaint, filed by David Floyd, Djibril Toure, Lumumba Bandele.(Donahue, Linda) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
17 STIPULATION It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the time for plaintiffs and defendants attorneys to complete discovery is enlarged to September 30, 2008. (Discovery due by 9/30/2008.) (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 8/5/08) (mme) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
18 MOTION for Andrea Hope Costello to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by David Floyd, Lumumba Bandele, Djibril Toure.(Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
19 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL The above−referenced action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amounts specified in paragraphs "2" through "4". Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff LUMUMBA BANDELE the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all the claims against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD # 11092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER

Case: 1:07-cv-03339-MGC As of: 09/22/2013 09:04 PM EDT 5 of 5
ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVTN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff DJIBRIL TOURE the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all the claims against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD # 11092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVIN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiff DAVID FLOYD the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND ($15,000.00) DOLLARS, in full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. In consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiff agrees to the dismissal of all the claims against the defendants CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER THOMAS STEVENS (SHIELD # 11092), in his individual and official capacity, NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER CARLOS VEGA, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICER ERICK NOLAN, in his individual and official capacity; NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT SEAMUS LAVIN, in his individual and official capacity: NEW YORK CITY POLICE SERGEANT HOLT, in his individual and official capacity, and to release all defendants and all present and former employees and agents of the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action that have or could have been alleged by plaintiff in this action arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney's fees. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 9/19/08) (mme) Modified on 10/7/2008 (mme). (Entered: 09/22/2008)