UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PLAINTIFF,


THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Detective DAVID CASEY,
Detective JOHN DOE,
Supervising Officer(s) 60 Precinct on January 5th 2002,
Departmental Supervising Officer(s) of Detectives DAVID CASEY and JOHN DOE on January 5th 2002 through April 8 2002, individually and in their official capacities as Employees of The New York City Police Department,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No. _____________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff demands trial by jury
____________________________________ )

Introduction

Plaintiff brings this action against the individual Detectives, the Defendant City of New York ("City"), and The New York City Department of Corrections for damages arising out of an False Arrest , Malicious Prosecution, Illegal Search, Unsanitary Conditions and other unconstitutional policies and actions, and state and common law claims of emotional distress, assault and battery, and filing a false report, all arising from Defendant Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE; during and after Plaintiff's arrest on January 5, 2002, Defendants' refusal to provide Plaintiff's constitutional guarantees during his arrest as well as other allegations herein stated.

The defendants violated Plaintiff's rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Article 1, Sections 6, 11 and 12 of the New York State Constitution; as well as rights to be free from false arrest, illegal imprisonment, racial discrimination, and deprived of constitutional rights to be secure in his person and free from the use of unreasonable force by one acting under color of law under the laws of the United States and the State of New York. As a result of the defendants' unconstitutional and unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and damage to his reputation. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights and an award of damages and attorney's fees.

The defendants' actions against Plaintiff were part of widespread patterns and practices of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). In arresting thousands of New Yorkers every year without legal justification.

A December 1, 1999, report by the New York State Attorney General analyzing Police Department documents indicates that blacks are significantly more likely to be stopped and arrested without legal justification than are whites.

An August 2000 report released by The Civil Rights Commission, Police Practices and Civil Rights in New York City using subpoenaed documents and statistics revealing racial profiling, lack of disciplinary actions and monitoring by superiors.

The settlement in Daniels, et al v. The City of New York regarding the Street Crime Unit (SCU) stopping and frisking New York City residents based on their race, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

A May 2003 press conference from the President of the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association complaining about forced quotas by the NYPD for writing summons, and the erosion of the relationship with the communities they serve.

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants to redress the deprivation of rights secured him by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1988 and the common law.

Plaintiff is an adult domiciled in the Borough of Brooklyn, in the City of New York. Each defendant is, upon information and belief, a citizen of New York.

Defendant City is, and at all times mentioned, a municipal corporation exists by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum o$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, and 1343(a) (3), and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Plaintiff also invokes supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over his state claims against Defendants for common law violations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 as the common law claims form part of the same case or controversy.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as the cause of action occurred in this District.

This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 and the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the laws of the State of New York. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1331, 1343 (3-4). Supplemental jurisdiction is asserted over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C ' 1367.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b) in that the plaintiff's claims arose in the Eastern District of New York.

Jurisdiction to grant declaratory judgment is conferred by 28 U.S.C. '' 2201, 2202. An award of costs and attorneys fees is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1988

Parties

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was a resident of New York on January 5, 2002.

Defendant City operates and governs the New York City Police Department pursuant to the laws of the State of New York.

Defendants DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE and their superiors are sued both individually and in their official capacity. At all times pertinent hereto,

Defendants DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE and their supervisors were employed by the New York City Police Department.

Defendants DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE were acting as police officers and detectives in the scope of their employment for Defendant City at some times mentioned herein and at other times mentioned herein Defendant DAVID CASEY acted beyond the scope of his employment.

The NYPD Supervising Officer(s) and the NYPD Desk Officer(s) on duty at the time that Plaintiff was at the 60 Precinct; are sued in their individual capacities.

New York City Department of Corrections.

New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

At the time of the alleged incident and at all times pertinent hereto, Defendants acted under color of law, of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.

On July 3, 2002 a Notice of Claim was served. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the service of said Notice of Claim upon Defendants and adjustment or payment thereof has been neglected.

FACTS

On January 5, 2002 at about 5:30 p.m., Plaintiff, a male black, was stopped while walking down Neptune Avenue by Detectives DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE, maliciously and with want of reasonable suspicion and want of probable cause.

Detectives DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE were in an unmarked black SUV and exited the vehicle in plainclothes without a badge displayed and without identifying themselves, grabbed Plaintiff, and began searching through a shopping bag Plaintiff was carrying containing sealed jars of spaghetti sauce and soy sauce Plaintiff had recently purchased, without asking Plaintiff’s permission.

Plaintiff was not carrying anything illegal, nor was acting in any way that was would give cause to any reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff had or was about to engage in any violations of any New York criminal or city municipal laws.

Plaintiff demanded to be left alone; Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE did not comply.

Plaintiff was pushed on to a rear door of the SUV while Detective Casey and Detective JOHN DOE began going through Plaintiff’s pockets without any explanation to the Plaintiff.

Detective DAVID CASEY removed Plaintiff’s wallet and began searching through it without Plaintiff’s permission, and ignored Plaintiff’s orders not to handle Plaintiff’s wallet, and to return it.

Detective JOHN DOE displayed a badge from his pocket for two seconds, then returned it, then placed the handcuffs on the Plaintiff, indicating that Plaintiff was under arrest for Disorderly Conduct, although Plaintiff had not engaged in any behavior that violated any New York penal law or city municipal law.

They did not inform Plaintiff how the Disorderly Conduct law had been violated, and pushed Plaintiff inside the SUV, and drove Plaintiff to the 60 Precinct in Brooklyn NY. Plaintiff did not resist in any way.

The Desk Officers and Supervising officers observed Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE entering the Precinct in plainclothes without any badges exposed, escorting Plaintiff into the holding cell.

Plaintiff was ordered by Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE to remove Plaintiff’s shirt, shoes and pants. Plaintiff refused to remove the pants, and Detective DAVID CASEY looked inside Plaintiff’s pants and underwear, and frisked Plaintiff’s socks without Plaintiff’s permission, and without reasonable suspicion and probable cause that Plaintiff processed anything illegal or dangerous, and did not find anything.

Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE took photographs of the Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s permission, and Detective JOHN DOE called the Plaintiff an “asshole” when Plaintiff did not cooperate.

Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE searched through Plaintiff’s wallet and returned it without two gift certificates totally $50.

Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE conspired to falsely and maliciously charge Plaintiff with Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest. Plaintiff did not resist arrest nor engaged in any disorderly conduct as defined by the New York State Penal Code. Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE falsely and maliciously charged that Plaintiff appeared to be holding a beverage that could possibly be alcoholic, and pushed the Detectives when they initially approached the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not holding any beverages, and did not push nor touch Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE during any interaction with them.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff requested to use the phone to speak with an attorney when Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE attempted question the Plaintiff, and the request was ignored.

Plaintiff was transferred to Central Booking, by Detective DAVID CASEY and DETECTIVE JOHN DOE, and refused to give any information until Plaintiff spoke with an attorney. Plaintiff was transferred back to the 60 Precinct, and maliciously left in handcuffs in the holding cell for several hours, then escorted by DETECTIVE DAVID CASEY and DETECTIVE JOHN DOE 2 to Coney Island Hospital, then Kings County Hospital where Plaintiff again refused to neither answer any questions nor sign anything as requested until communication with an attorney.

Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE was told by an employee of Coney Island Hospital to bring the Plaintiff back to Kings County Hospital after being released from the court without Plaintiff’s permission and without any reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the Plaintiff requires or requested Physical or Psychological help.

Plaintiff was transferred to the 60 precinct holding cell and waited until the morning of January 6 when escorted back to the criminal court building with DAVID CASEY and DETECTIVE JOHNSON. Plaintiff was denied any food or water.

Several Police officers throughout the evening attempted to converse with the Plaintiff; Plaintiff relayed one warning to be given to the precinct supervisor that the officers were making, illegal searches, malicious arrests, and filing false reports against innocent pedestrians., and because they were driving unmarked vehicles and not displaying any badges they could not be identified.

Although plaintiff had no arrest record, Plaintiff was arraigned with bail set at $500, and to be confined to the Brooklyn House of Detention until Friday

January 10 2002. Detective DAVID CASEY who was consigned to stay with the Plaintiff throughout the day, said to one of the court officers that the Plaintiff was “one of the dumbest people” he had ever met.

Plaintiff was transferred to the jail cell in the Brooklyn Criminal Court with about 30 detainees, until January 7, without any toilet paper or soap, in unhygienic conditions which endangered Plaintiff’s emotional and physical health.

On January 6 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau by telephone, and then had an in person interview with two Sergeants a few hour’s later, lasting about one half hour.

Plaintiff was housed in the Brooklyn House of Detention in conditions without adequate soap and heat from January 7 to January 10 2002.

Plaintiff made the required court appearance on April 8, 2002, and the charges against the Plaintiff were dismissed.

At no time pertinent hereto did Defendant DAVID CASEY AND JOHN DOE nor any other defendant have probable cause to believe Plaintiff had committed or was committing the crime of Obstruction of Governmental Administration, yet they allowed that charge to stand against Plaintiff from January 5 2002 until

April 8 2002, causing Plaintiff to defend against a false charge for 90 Days, making appearances in criminal court until it was finally dismissed by the court.

Plaintiff contacted the office of the New York City Police Department Chief of Police and Deputy Chief of Police by telephone once a month from January 2002

to June 2002 to make, and follow up on the complaints of the malicious prosecution and the probability of a wider conspiracy by that department. Each call lasted approximately 20 minute, and the messages were promised to be given to those respective department heads.

Plaintiff contacted by telephone and left the same complaint to the Integrity Control Officer for the 60 precinct, the Deputy Chief of the New York Police Department Intelligence Department, and Deputy Chief of Detectives twice.

Plaintiff contacted by telephone the Inspector General for the New York Dept of Corrections about the dangerous conditions in the Brooklyn House of Detention and the holding cell for the criminal court.

Defendants acted with actual malice toward Plaintiff and with willful and wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of Plaintiff.

Defendants' actions constitute malicious prosecution unreasonable and excessive use of force, deprivation of liberty and punishment without due process of law.

Upon information and belief, at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant City permitted and tolerated a pattern and practice of unreasonable use of force, punishment and deprivation of Constitutional Guarantees by its police officers so they can effect an arrest.

Upon information and belief, Defendant City has maintained a system of review of police conduct through its departments, including Internal Affairs, which is so untimely and cursory as to be ineffective and to permit and tolerate the unreasonable and excessive use of force, punishment and denial of Constitutional rights by police officers.

The acts, omissions, systemic flaws, policies, and customs of Defendant City caused police officers to believe that their misconduct, abuse of power, and denial of civilian rights would not be aggressively, honestly, and properly investigated, with the foreseeable result that officers are more likely to use malicious prosecution, excessive or unreasonable force, ointment and denial of rights against Plaintiff and others in the future.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and mental anguish, and was deprived of his physical liberty.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER §1983

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 53.

The intentional, Illegal Detention, Illegal Search and malicious prosecution violated the rights of Plaintiff as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and such misconduct constituted a departure from the standards of decency that mark our society. Defendant

DAVID CASEY and Defendant JOHN DOE are individually liable and Defendant City is liable for tolerating such misconduct.

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO COUNSEL & DUE PROCESS

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 55.

It was the policy and practice of the Defendant City to authorize certain officers, including Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY to cover up the use of (a) denying arrestees their constitutional right to counsel.

This policy and practice of Defendant City encouraged and caused constitutional violations by police officers, including the violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights by Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY described in the foregoing paragraphs.

At all times pertinent hereto, the supervisors who supervised the Defendant officers who unlawfully violated Plaintiff's rights encourage and tolerate the policies and practices described in the foregoing paragraphs.

Defendant City refused adequately to train, direct, supervise, or control Defendant officers so as to prevent the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY were acting within the scope of their employment and pursuant to the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendant City. These policies and practices were enforced by Defendant City and its employee supervisors, and were the moving force, proximate cause, or affirmative link behind the conduct causing Plaintiff's injury. Defendant City is therefore liable for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights by Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY.

COUNT III: CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 61.

Defendants Detective JOHN DOE’S and Detective DAVID CASEY’S acts were deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton, malicious, and oppressive in conspiring to violate Plaintiff's statutory civil rights by acting in concert to Illegally search Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s processions with want of reasonable suspicion, to keep plaintiff’s gift certificates, to maliciously arrest and prosecute with want of probable cause, to file a false report damaging to Plaintiff’s reputation, to ignore Plaintiff's requests for telephone use, and together creating an environment of intimidation and coercion, including the use of verbal and physical abuse, as more fully described in the foregoing paragraphs, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for which Defendants DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE are individually liable.

COUNT IV: ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 63.

The intentional illegal search, verbal and physical abuse of Plaintiff by Defendants Detective DAVID CASEY and Detective JOHN DOE while Plaintiff was in their care and custody was done with actual malice toward Plaintiff and with willful and wanton indifference to and deliberate disregard for and the rights for the civil rights and liberties of Plaintiff as a civilian in the public population. Plaintiff is thus entitled to exemplary damages.

COUNTY V: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65.

Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY’S intentional abuse of discretion, malicious arrest and prosecution with want of probable cause, ignoring Plaintiff's constitutional rights to speak with counsel while detained, demanding a strip search of Plaintiff was unjustified, and caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress for which Defendants JOHN DOE and DAVID CASEY are individually liable.

The intentional and Malicious Prosecution and illegal detainment and Abuse of Discretion was unjustified and done with actual malice and wanton indifference and deliberate disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional right to be free from search and seizure and excessive force, and deliberate disregard for human life and dignity and of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled to exemplary damages.

COUNT VI: NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 68.

Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY, while acting as agents and employees for Defendant City in their capacity as police officers for Defendant City, owed a duty to Plaintiff to perform their police duties without the use of intimidation, coercion and verbal l abuse and refusing Plaintiff his constitutional rights. Defendants' use of intimidation, coercion and verbal and l abuse upon Plaintiff and refusing to abide by his constitutional rights, when Plaintiff was unarmed and did not pose a threat of death or grievous bodily injury to Defendants or others constitutes negligence for which Defendants

Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY are individually liable.

As a proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff has sustained mental suffering.

At all times of the alleged incident, Defendants DAVID CASEY and SMITH were acting within the scope of their employment as officers and Detectives of the Defendant City Police Department.

Defendant City is liable for compensatory damages under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of defendants committed within the scope of their employment.

COUNT VII: NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73.

Defendant City owed a duty to Plaintiff to train and supervise and otherwise control its police officers in the use of coercion, intimidation, violation of constitutional guarantees and other matters incidental to the exercise of police functions.

Defendant City failed to provide adequate training, supervision, and control of Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY, which failure constitutes negligence.

As a proximate result of Defendant City's negligent failure to provide adequate training, supervision, and control of Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY, Plaintiff has sustained emotional distress, and mental anguish. These injuries have caused and will continue to cause plaintiff pain and suffering, both mental and physical.

Defendant City's failure to provide adequate training and supervision to its police officers constitutes a willful and wanton indifference and deliberate disregard for human life and the rights of private citizens, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled to exemplary damages.

Defendant Department of Corrections endangered Plaintiff’s physical and emotional health and well being by allowing for conditions that were unsanitary and inadequately heated throughout the stay at the Brooklyn House of Detention and the holding cells of the Brooklyn Criminal Court.

COUNT VIII: MALICIOUS ABUSE OF PROCESS, FALSE ARREST WITH MALICE, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 79.

Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY used the criminal process against Plaintiff in order to advanced their own careers in the New York City Police Department, and to dissuade him from asserting his rights against Defendants and in order to cover up their own wrongdoing to avoid civil and criminal liability for their own acts.

Defendants Detective JOHN DOE and Detective DAVID CASEY falsely arrested with malice and falsely imprisoned Plaintiff for charges of DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RESISTING ARREST that never existed and was in fact dismissed by the court.

As a proximate result of this malicious abuse of process, false arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, Plaintiff suffered the damages as aforesaid.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

In arresting, searching, detaining and prosecuting the plaintiff without sufficient cause and with malice, the defendant police officers engaged in unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Municipal liability for these violations of the Fourth Amendment rests upon two grounds. First, upon information and belief, the individual officers in this case acted in a manner consistent with the policy, custom, and usage of the NYPD. Second, there is a failure to train, supervise and discipline amounting to deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of plaintiff where, as here, municipal officials "know to a moral certainty" that police officers will be given discretion to approach individuals on the street and to detain or arrest these individuals; that such encounters present police officers with choices that proper training, supervision, and discipline will make less difficult and alleviate malicious behavior; that there exists a history of police officers mishandling these situations; that there exists a history of police officers conspiring to engage in malicious violations of constitutional rights and civil liberties; that the wrong decision and malicious behavior by police officers will frequently cause the deprivation of constitutional rights.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

In arresting, searching and detaining the plaintiff maliciously and without sufficient cause, the defendant police officers engaged in unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of Article I Section 12 of the New York Constitution. Municipal liability for these violations of the State Constitution rest upon principles of respondeat superior.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

The defendants violated the plaintiff's rights under New York law to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Under the "totality of circumstances," the behavior of the individual officers in arresting, searching and detaining plaintiff amounts to a prima facie case of racial discrimination which, unless adequately rebutted by defendants, constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The circumstances giving rise to this claim include, inter alia, the fact that responsibility of police officers make arrest on the street is one that involves broad discretionary decision-making by police officers; that the particular encounter, at issue here, cannot be justified on the basis of the Plaintiff’s behavior at the time of the arrest. Municipal liability rests further upon the fact that policymakers within the NYPD "know to a moral certainty" that police officers will confront close situations as to whether there is a justifiable basis to arrest individuals; that in the exercise of such discretionary decision-making police officers act upon their individual experience, instincts and attitudes -- including their personal prejudices; that there is a history within in the NYPD of police officers mishandling street encounters and of wrongfully and maliciously arresting and detaining blacks; that such situations present difficult choices of the sort that training, supervision, and discipline will make less difficult, and prevent malicious, unconstitutional and illegal Police behaviors; that discretionary decisions by police officers that are grounded in racial prejudice will amount to a denial of equal protection of the law; that blacks are arrested and detained in numbers that suggest that, without some other explanation, intentional racial discrimination is taking place; and that the failure to train, supervise, and discipline officers in ways that guard against officers acting on the basis of racial prejudice amounts to deliberate indifference by the City to the constitutional rights of individuals.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Under the "totality of circumstances" the defendants' behavior in arresting, searching and detaining the plaintiff amounts to a prima facie case of racial discrimination which, unless adequately rebutted by defendants, constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of Article I Section 11 of the New York Constitution. The circumstances giving rise to this claim include, inter alia, the fact that the responsibility of police officers to arrest individuals on the street is one that involves broad discretionary decision-making by police officers; that in the exercise of such discretionary decision-making police officers act upon their own experience, instincts and attitudes -- including their personal prejudices; that the particular encounter, at issue here, cannot be justified on the basis of the Plaintiff’s behavior at the time of the arrest. Municipal liability rests further upon principles of respondeat superior.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that this Court:
Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

Issue a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures;

Issue a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right under Article 1, Section 12 of the New York Constitution to be free of unreasonable search and seizure;

Issue a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right under New York law to be free from false arrest and imprisonment with malice and conspiracy to violate Civil rights and Civil liberties;

Issue a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to equal protection of the laws and to be free of racial discrimination;

Issue a declaration that the defendants violated the plaintiff's right under Article 1, Sections 11 and 12 of the New York Constitution to equal protection of the law and to be free of racial discrimination;

Issue a declaration that the defendants developed and maintained practices, policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its citizens, which caused the violations of Plaintiff's rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

Order the defendants to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff;

Order the defendants to pay attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1988; and

Grant any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendants and award the following amounts:

One Million Dollars compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff;

Six million Dollars punitive and exemplary damages in favor of Plaintiff;

Costs of this action, including reasonable attorney fees to the Plaintiff pursuant to The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. §1988 (1976); and

For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;

Such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York _____________________________
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS) ss.:

Plaintiff, being duly sworn, states that he is the plaintiff in this action and that the foregoing complaint is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters

therein stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those matters he believes it to be true.

Sworn to and Subscribed before me



_____________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC


_____________________________________
Plaintiff