Luis Delgado v. The City of New York, et al.

Letter Opposition to Defendants' CITY; RAFAEL PINEIRO and CHARLES V. CAMPISI'S Leave to Move for Summary Judgment


Plaintiff is a dark skinned Puerto Rican male tenured civil service police officer employed with the Police Department City of New York and while employed he was subjected to racial discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation because he complained about his treatment. Specifically, plaintiff was arrested in or around June 11, 2004, for allegedly sodomizing a minor (Hispanic Male) through anal sex without a condom. Based upon that arrest, plaintiff was immediately suspended under the authority of Defendants’ CHARLES V. CAMPISI (Caucasian Male) and former First Deputy Commissioner George A. Grasso (Caucasian Male). Plaintiff spent several days in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction. Upon return from suspension, plaintiff was transferred to the Quartermaster Section on modified assignment performing non-enforcement duties such as manual unskilled labor and custodial duties. When plaintiff was initially assigned to the Quartermaster Section he was subjected to constant supervision with other employees’ snickering because he was portrayed as a sexual deviate in the newspapers as well as within the Department. Plaintiff continues to perform in this assignment without incident. The arrest was made by Internal Affairs Bureau Group No.: 22 (Caucasian Male investigator’s) after an assessment by the Bronx District Attorney’s Office (Caucasian Female Attorney. Shortly thereafter, the First Deputy Commissioner through the Department Advocate’s Office initiated parallel disciplinary charges against him. The Employee Management Division a subordinate command of Defendant RAFAEL PINEIRO (Light Skinned Cuban Male) then on paper allegedly began to monitor plaintiff’s performance in the workplace. Prior to this incident, plaintiff was an employee in good standing waiting to be promoted to the position of Sergeant.

At the time of the arrest, the Internal Affairs Bureau as well as the Bronx District Attorney’s Office already knew that plaintiff had an alibi that clearly placed him in another area of the park on the cell phone with his mother in law but, they ignored the lead. The Internal Affairs Bureau as well as the Bronx District Attorney’s Office already knew that based upon the statements of the alleged complainant victim and his mother (Hispanic Female) that plaintiff did not sodomize him. The Internal Affairs Bureau and the Bronx District Attorney’s Office already knew that the complainant victim already underwent at least two extensive medical examinations including one invasive examination and the results were negative for any sexual contact or bodily fluids connected to the plaintiff. The Internal Affairs Bureau and the Bronx District Attorney already knew that the alleged eyewitness claimed plaintiff sodomized the alleged complainant victim without a condom yet the defendants’ collectively continue to this day to argue, that he may have used a condom. The Internal Affairs Bureau and the Bronx District Attorney’s Office already knew that was not true because there was no semen found on the oral, penile, anal swabs or the clothing from the alleged complainant victim nor any amylase found on the penile swabs nor any Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), a chemical used in condom lubricants detected on the anal swab. The same negative results were obtained from the plaintiff’s clothing. The defendants’ collectively to this day continue to argue that the Bronx District Attorney’s Office dismissed the case against plaintiff because the alleged complainant victim failed to cooperate when they already knew that the complainant victim and his mother cooperated with them a number of times despite being mistreated. Additionally, the Internal Affairs Bureau as well as the Bronx District Attorney’s Office already knew that other than the subjective show up on the day of plaintiff’s arrest, the alleged eyewitness did not specifically identify the plaintiff as committing any offense against the alleged complaint victim. Moreover, the plaintiff was placed in a photo lineup and was not identified by the complaint victim as committing any offense against him. Meanwhile, if you read every worksheet in the Internal Affairs Bureau case folder the investigators’ writes as if the complainant victim specifically identified behavior that can be attributed to the plaintiff. The Bronx District Attorney suggested to the Internal Affairs Bureau to reinvestigate this case to ensure that the alleged eyewitness account is correct. There was no such confirmatory investigation performed by the Internal Affairs Bureau. In an attempt to further support their circular reasoning the Internal Affairs Bureau investigators’ even reported plaintiff to the New York State Child Abuse and Maltreated Register although there was no legal basis to do so. Defendants’ already knew that the Bronx District Attorney’s Office dismissed this case after determining that there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the plaintiff to any crime. After the Department Trial failed for the same circular reasoning by defendants’ the plaintiff was cleared of any wrongdoing related to any sexual related offenses. Defendants’ CITY; RAFAEL PINEIRO; and CHARLES V. CAMPISI then placed plaintiff on Level III Performance Monitoring, the highest level of monitoring despite being cleared of the sex related offenses and no prior disciplinary history.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Eric Sanders, The Sanders Firm, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


The Sanders Firm, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.