Tricia Lara v. City of New York, Et Al.

Case 1:22-cv-07542 Document 1 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
TRICIA LARA
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, JURY DEMAND
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DERBY ST. FORT, as Commanding

Officer, 61st Precinct; JOHN DOE 1, as Administrative Lieutenant,
61st Precinct; JOHN DOE 2, as Operations Coordinator, 61' Precinct;
JOHN DOE 3, as Domestic Violence Sergeant, 61St Precinct; JOHN
DOE 4, as Patrol Supervisor, 61St Precinct; JOHN DOE 5, as Detective
Squad Commander, 61St Precinct; WANYORY GARCIA, as Detective
Squad Supervisor, 61St Precinct; JOHN DOE 6, as Desk Officer, 61St
Precinct; ROBERT EMMANUEL, as Police Officer, 61St Precinct;
RICHARD POWERS, as Police Officer, 61St Precinct; JOHN DOE 7,
as Police Officer, 61St Precinct; CLAUDIA PINZON, as Police Officer,
61St Precinct; YULIA BRAGINSKY, as Police Officer, 61St Precinct;
PHILIP DISANTO, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct and
STEFAN OLYNYK, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct, each
sued individually and in their official capacities as employees of
defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Defendants'
x
The Plaintiff TRICIA LARA through her attorney The Sanders Firm, P.C., files this federal
complaint against Defendants' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1;
JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE
6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA
BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and S I EFAN OLYNYK respectfully set forth and allege that:
INTRODUCTION
This is an action for equitable relief and money damages on behalf of the Plaintiff TRICIA
LARA, (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff') who was and is being deprived of her civil rights
because Defendants' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN
DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6;
ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA
BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and SIBFAN OLYNYK'S actions and inactions of
implementing òfficial and un-official' policies of failing to properly investigate her claims as a
Black female victim of domestic violence that led to her false arrest and malicious prosecution
without probable cause; unlawfully denied her equal protection rights regarding the application of
the primary physical aggressor defense under the criminal procedure law, defenses of justification
under the penal law designed to prevent false arrests and malicious prosecutions and disregarding
their legal obligation to arrest Ansila E. Bryant for the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree a C
Felony.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965, 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1343 and 2202 to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by:
a. the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
2. The unlawful practices, violations of plaintiffs civil rights complained of herein
were committed within the Eastern District of New York.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
3. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA has filed suit with this Court within the applicable statute of
limitations period.
4. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA is not required to exhaust any administrative procedures
prior to suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
PLAINTIFF
2
5. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA is over twenty-one years of age, resident of Kings County
and self identifies as a Black female, consistent with the [2020 US Census] question [about race]
is based on an individual identifies. The United States recognizes race categories which include
racial and national origins and sociocultural groups.
DEFENDANTS'
6. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation organized under
the laws of the State of New York.
7. Defendant DERBY ST. FORT, as Commanding Officer, 61st Precinct.
8. Defendant JOHN DOE 1, as Administrative Lieutenant, 61st Precinct.
9. Defendant JOHN DOE 2, as Operations Coordinator, 61st Precinct.
10. Defendant JOHN DOE 3, as Domestic Violence Sergeant, 61st Precinct.
11. Defendant JOHN DOE 4, as Patrol Supervisor, 61st Precinct.
12. Defendant JOHN DOE 5, as Detective Squad Commander, 61st Precinct.
13. Defendant WANYORY GARCIA, as Detective Squad Supervisor, 61st Precinct.
14. Defendant JOHN DOE 6, as Desk Officer, 61st Precinct.
15. Defendant ROBERT EMMANUEL, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.
16. Defendant RICHARD POWERS, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.
17. Defendant JOHN DOE 7, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.
18. Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.
19. Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.
20. Defendant PHILIP DISANTO, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct.
21. Defendant STEFAN OLYNYK, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct.
BACKGROUND
3
22. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that around April 2022, Defendant DERBY ST.
FORT through Defendants' JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN
DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS;
JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and STEFAN
OLYNYK and other police personnel compiled and submitted statistical data to be added to the
NYPD CompStat 2.0 program and other related department programs regarding the handling of
311 complaints sent to the 61st Precinct.
23. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that historically, the statistical data resident
within the NYPD CompStat 2.0 program and other related department programs are manipulated
by police personnel because such statistical data is used to grant promotions, special assignment
designations, other job incentives and budgets to the detriment of victims of domestic violence
and the general public.
24. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that an internal audit performed by the NYPD
Quality Assurance Division or other similar unit indicated the 311 complaints sent to the 61'
Precinct were not properly investigated. In other words, manipulated. Defendant DERBY ST.
FORT claimed there was no manipulation but, simply `coding errors.'
25. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that the statistical data sent from the 61St Precinct
indicated a pattern and practice that crimes and other law enforcement activities are manipulated
to avoid index-crime classifications and other data manipulations to the detriment of victims of
domestic violence and the general public.
26. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that according to the NYPD website, it responds
to approximately 230,000 domestic incidents annually, or nearly six-hundred calls a day.
27. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that according to the NYPD website, domestic
4
violence prevention police officers face unpredictable, potentially volatile situations and
therefore, are highly trained to help ensure victims' safety as well as their own.
28. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that according to the NYPD website, more than
400 NYPD domestic violence prevention officers, investigators and supervisors assist victims of
domestic violence in precincts and Housing Bureau police service areas citywide.
29. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that according to the NYPD website, the
Department is committed to serving all communities in the City of New York, especially those
vulnerable to victimization.
30. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that according to the NYPD website, in addition
to enforcing the laws and working to ensure victims' safety, the NYPD Domestic Violence Unit
performs domestic violence awareness outreach. Each local precinct and police service area has a
domestic violence office.
31. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that the aforementioned regarding the
department's commitment to domestic violence is nothing more than public relations propaganda.
32. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that her personal experience as a Black female
victim of domestic violence, is that her claims were treated as a mere bother and her equal
protection rights in particular the application of the primary physical aggressor defense under the
criminal procedure law and defenses of justification under the penal law designed to prevent false
arrests and malicious prosecutions were not applied.
33. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on or about June 30, 2022, she was the sole
resident and leaseholder of a residential apartment located in the County of Kings.
34. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on that date, as a licensed registered nurse in
the state of New York, she was the primary caregiver of her mother.
5
35. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on that date, she had a Ring surveillance
camera placed in the living room for protection of her person and property.
36. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that the Ring surveillance camera unobstructed
field of view recorded the areas across the living room leading to the kitchen area and front door.
37. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that prior to June 30, 2022, she didn't socialize
with Ansila E. Bryant because she has a history of assaulting people, committing thefts, other
property related crimes and frauds here and abroad in Trinidad.
38. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she did not visit Ansila E. Bryant or others on
her mother's side of the family nor did Bryant visit with her.
39. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on or about June 30, 2022, the Ring
surveillance camera was operational.
40. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on that date, she was taking care of her mother
when the doorbell rang.
41. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she opened the front door.
42. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant was right outside the door, she
remained inside of the apartment. Ms. Patrice Roberts and Adanna Assan accompanied Ms. Bryant.
43. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant attempted to enter the
apartment while she remained inside the apartment, she denied Bryant permission to enter.
44. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant disregarded her wishes and
tried to enter anyway; therefore, she blocked the entryway with her body.
45. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant forcibly pushed past her while
striking her in the chest twice with her fists.
46. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant's violent actions caused her
6
pain and to fear for her life and property.
47. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that in response to stop Ansila E. Bryant's violent
actions, she protected herself and her property punching Bryant in the face to stop any further
physical violence against her and further intrusion inside of the apartment.
48. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that her mother pleaded for her to stop, she left the
scene and headed to the 61st Precinct because she was afraid to be alone with them.
49. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that upon arrival at the 61st Precinct, she met with
Defendant JOHN DOE 7.
50. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she told Defendant JOHN DOE 7, her address
explaining Ansila E. Bryant violently forced her way into the apartment, assaulted her, she wants
her arrested and there's a Ring surveillance video which proves it.
51. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant JOHN DOE 7 refused to file a
domestic incident report, complaint report and aided report consistent with the law and department
policy instead, he lifted the microphone from his chest to contact someone via department radio.
52. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that unbeknownst to her at the time, Defendants'
RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL responded to a 911 call for service at the
apartment initiated by Ansila E. Bryant.
53. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant JOHN DOE 7 told her to remain
inside of the precinct.
54. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant JOHN DOE 7 failed to notify
Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL about Ansila E. Bryant's violent
actions and demands for her arrest.
55. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and
7
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to inquire from Defendant JOHN DOE 7 if there was any
information to assist them with investigating this 911 call for service.
56. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' JOHN DOE 7; RICHARD
POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to notify Defendant JOHN DOE 4 regarding her
claims.
57. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant JOHN DOE 4 failed to supervise
Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL to ensure they properly
investigated this domestic incident consistent with the law and department policy.
58. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Ansila E. Bryant supported by Ms. Patrice
Roberts, Adanna Assan and her mother spun this false tale of being assaulted. The video of the false
tale is captured on the body cameras assigned to Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT
EMMANUEL. Meanwhile, Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL
disregarded the Ring surveillance camera with easily retrievable èxonerating' video clearly visible
on a nearby cabinet in the living room.
59. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that after Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and
ROBERT EMMANUEL accepted the false representations of Ansila E. Bryant, they failed to
further investigate her claims consistent with the law and department policy.
60. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that in accordance with New York State Criminal
Procedure § 140.10 (49c), ... when an officer has reasonable cause to believe that more than one
family or household member has committed such a misdemeanor, the officer is not required to
arrest each such person. In such circumstances, the officer shall attempt to identify and arrest the
primary physical aggressor... The officer shall evaluate each complaint separately to determine
who is the primary physical aggressor and shall not base the decision to arrest or not to arrest on
8
the willingness of a person to testify or otherwise participate in a judicial proceeding.
61. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that in accordance with New York State Penal
Law § 35.10 (6), the use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute
an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: ... A person
may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in
self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny
of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from
custody.
Law § 35.15 (1), a person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force
upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person...
Law § 35.20 (2), a person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or
privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably
believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal
trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and
may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted
commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
9
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to interview her.
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to ascertain whether the Ring surveillance camera captured the
incident between she and Ansila E. Bryant.
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to notify Defendant JOHN DOE 4 regarding her claims.
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to document that she walked into the precinct to assert her claims
and have Ansila E. Bryant arrested.
68. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges therefore, Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and
ROBERT EMMANUEL failed to apply the defenses available to her as defined in Paragraph Nos.:
60 — 63, violating her equal protection rights under the law that eventually led to her false arrest and
malicious prosecution.
69. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' JOHN DOE 7; RICHARD
POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL actions and inactions are inconsistent with the law and
department policy but, consistent with the pattern and practice that crimes and other law
enforcement activities are manipulated to avoid index-crime classifications and other data
manipulations to the detriment of victims of domestic violence and the general public.
70. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on or about July 1, 2022, she walked into the
61' Precinct again to report the crimes committed against her by Ansila E. Bryant.
71. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON prepared a
domestic incident report, intentionally misstated the circumstances of the incident and listed the
10
offense as Harassment; meanwhile, if you read the allegations written, it constitutes Burglary in
the Second Degree a C Felony an index-crime.
72. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON failed to
properly investigate her claims.
73. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that since Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON failed to
properly investigate her claims, she was unable to ascertain whether the Ring surveillance camera
captured the incident between she and Ansila E. Bryant.
74. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON failed to notify
Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 5;
WANYORY GARCIA; PHILIP DISANTO or SlEFAN OLYNYK regarding her claims.
75. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges therefore Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON failed to
apply the defenses available to her as defined in Paragraph Nos.: 60 — 63, violating her equal
protection rights under the law that eventually led to her false arrest and malicious prosecution.
76. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON'S actions and
inactions are inconsistent with the law and department policy but, consistent with the pattern and
practice that crimes and other law enforcement activities are manipulated to avoid index-crime
classifications and other data manipulations to the detriment of victims of domestic violence and
the general public.
77. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that there's an internal document review process
managed by Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN
DOE 5; and WANYORY GARCIA designed to ensure police investigations are properly handled
and classified. The internal document review process failed because the motivating factor is the
manipulation of statistical data consistent with the pattern and practice that crimes and other law
11
manipulations to the detriment of victims of domestic violence and the general public.
78. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on about July 1, 2022, Defendant PHILIP
DISANTO under the authority of Defendants' JOHN DOE 5 and WANYORY GARCIA entered
an Active Investigation Card into the E-Justice System for the NYPD and other law enforcement
personnel to arrest her for the crime of Assault in the Third Degree a Misdemeanor.
79. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' PHILIP DISANTO; JOHN DOE
5 and WANYORY GARCIA never contacted her regarding the Active Investigation Card
endangering her health, safety and welfare.
80. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' PHILIP DISANTO; JOHN DOE
5 and WANYORY GARCIA failed to interview her.
81. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' PHILIP DISANTO; JOHN DOE 5
and WANYORY GARCIA failed to interview her, therefore, they were unable to ascertain whether
the Ring surveillance camera captured the incident between she and Ansila E. Bryant.
82. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges therefore, Defendants' PHILIP DISANTO; JOHN
DOE 5 and WANYORY GARCIA failed to apply the defenses available to her as defined in
Paragraph Nos.: 60 — 63, violating her equal protection rights under the law that eventually led to
her false arrest and malicious prosecution.
83. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' PHILIP DISANTO; JOHN DOE 5
and WANYORY GARCIA actions and inactions are inconsistent with the law and department
policy but, consistent with the pattern and practice that crimes and other law enforcement activities
are manipulated to avoid index-crime classifications and other data manipulations to the
detriment of victims of domestic violence and the general public.
12
84. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that on or about July 4, 2022, she walked into the
61st Precinct to inquire about the complaint she filed with Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON.
85. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she met with Defendant YULIA
BRAGINSKY, who told her that there's no complaint filed under her name but, there's a warrant
for her arrest.
86. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she pleaded with Defendant YULIA
BRAGINSKY that she's the victim and there's a Ring surveillance video to prove it.
87. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that she attempted to show Defendant YULIA
BRAGINSKY the Ring surveillance video on her personal cellular telephone but, she declined
telling her to speak with the detective and placed her in handcuffs.
88. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY failed to
properly investigate her claims.
89. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that since Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY failed
to properly investigate her claims, therefore, she was unable to ascertain whether the Ring
surveillance camera captured the incident between she and Ansila E. Bryant.
90. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY failed to
notify Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE
5; JOHN DOE 6; WANYORY GARCIA; PHILIP DISANTO or STEFAN OLYNYK regarding her
claims.
91. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges therefore, Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY failed
to apply the defenses available to her as defined in Paragraph Nos.: 60 — 63, violating her equal
protection rights under the law that eventually led to her false arrest and malicious prosecution.
92. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY'S actions
13
and inactions are inconsistent with the law and department policy but, consistent with the pattern
and practice that crimes and other law enforcement activities are manipulated to avoid index-
crime classifications and other data manipulations to the detriment of victims of domestic
violence and the general public.
93. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant STEFAN OLYNYK under the
supervision of Defendants' JOHN DOE 5 and WANYORY GARCIA then falsely claimed on all
arrest and other department documents including the misdemeanor information he was the
arresting officer. There's no mention of Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY actually arresting her.
Nor did LARA meet Defendants' JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA or STEFAN OLYNYK.
94. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY
GARCIA and STEFAN OLYNYK never contacted her regarding the Active Investigation Card
endangering her health, safety and welfare.
GARCIA and S I EFAN OLYNYK failed to interview her.
GARCIA and STEFAN OLYNYK failed to interview her, therefore, they were unable to ascertain
whether the Ring surveillance camera captured the incident between she and Ansila E. Bryant.
97. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges therefore, Defendants' JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY
GARCIA and S I EFAN OLYNYK failed to apply the defenses available to her as defined in
Paragraph Nos.: 60 — 63, violating her equal protection rights under the law that eventually led to
her false arrest and malicious prosecution.
GARCIA and STEFAN OLYNYK actions and inactions are inconsistent with the law and
14
department policy but, consistent with the pattern and practice that crimes and other law
manipulations to the detriment of victims of domestic violence and the general public
99. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that after several court appearances and the
People reviewing the Ring surveillance video, on or about December 8, 2022, on the day of trial
moved to dismiss representing to the Court, upon further review the wrong person was arrested.
100. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that to this day, Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT;
JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY
GARCIA and JOHN DOE 6 failed in their legal obligation to ensure Ansila E. Bryant is arrested for
the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree a C Felony and to protect Lara's equal rights under the
law.
VIOLATIONS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
FALSE ARREST
IN VIOLATION OF
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
101. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 100 and incorporates
them by reference as Paragraphs 1 through 100 of Count I of this Complaint.
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and S I EFAN OLYNYK under color of law, personally
interfered with and deprived her of her constitutional rights.
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and S I EFAN OLYNYK acting individually and in their official
capacities as public officials of Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK under color of law, as a
15
Black female victim of domestic violence she was falsely arrested without probable cause,
unlawfully denied her equal protection rights under the law regarding the application of the primary
physical aggressor defense under the criminal procedure law; defenses of justification under the
penal law designed to prevent false arrests.
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and S IBFAN OLYNYK'S conduct caused her to suffer
emotional distress and other monetary damages.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
IN VIOLATION OF
them by reference as Paragraphs 1 through 104 of Count II of this Complaint.
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and S I EFAN OLYNYK under color of law, personally
interfered with and deprived her of her constitutional rights.
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and S I EFAN OLYNYK acting individually and in their official
capacities as public officials of Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK under color of law, as a
Black female victim of domestic violence she was maliciously prosecuted without probable
cause, unlawfully denied her equal protection rights under the law regarding the application of the
primary physical aggressor defense under the criminal procedure law; defenses of justification
under the penal law designed to prevent malicious prosecutions.
16
GARCIA; YULIA BRAGINSKY and STEFAN OLYNYK'S conduct caused her to suffer
COUNT III
MONELL CLAIM
IN VIOLATION OF
them by reference as Paragraphs 1 through 108 of Count III of this Complaint.
110. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK
through its agents Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3;
JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL;
RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA BRAGINSKY; PHILIP
DISANTO and S I EFAN OLYNYK caused her injuries.
actions and inactions of implementing òfficial and un-official' policies of failing to properly
investigate her claims as a Black female victim of domestic violence that led to her false arrest
and malicious prosecution without probable cause; unlawfully denied her equal protection rights
regarding the application of the primary physical aggressor defense under the criminal procedure
law, defenses of justification under the penal law designed to prevent false arrests and malicious
prosecutions and disregarding their legal obligation to arrest Ansila E. Bryant for the crime of
Burglary in the Second Degree a C Felony.
through its agents Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3;
JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL;
RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA BRAGINSKY; PHILIP
17
DISANTO and S'I EFAN OLYNYK caused her to suffer emotional distress and other monetary
damages.
COUNT IV
EQUAL PROTECTION - VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
IN VIOLATION OF
113. Plaintiff re-alleges Paragraphs 1 through 112 and incorporates them by reference
as Paragraphs 1 through 112 of Count IV of this Complaint.
114. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE
1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN
DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON;
YULIA BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and SIEFAN OLYNYK under color of law, actions
and inactions of implementing òfficial and un-official' policies of failing to properly investigate
her claims as a Black female victim of domestic violence that led to her false arrest and malicious
prosecution without probable cause; unlawfully denied her equal protection rights regarding the
application of the primary physical aggressor defense under the criminal procedure law, defenses of
justification under the penal law designed to prevent false arrests and malicious prosecutions and
disregarding their legal obligation to arrest Ansila E. Bryant for the crime of Burglary in the Second
Degree a C Felony.
115. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA alleges that Defendants' DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE
1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN
DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON;
YULIA BRAG1NSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and SIBFAN OLYNYK caused her to suffer
JURY TRIAL
18
116. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action that are
so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff TRICIA LARA demands compensatory and punitive damages from
Defendants' THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DERBY ST. FORT; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2;
JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6; ROBERT
EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA
BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and S LEFAN OLYNYK jointly and severally, in an amount to
be determined at trial, plus available statutory remedies, both legal and equitable, interests and
costs.
Dated: December 12, 2022

New York, N.Y.
spectpllysubmitted,
•
By:
Eric Sanders
Eric Sanders, Esq.

THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10005
(212) 652-2782 (Business Telephone)
(212) 652-2783 (Facsimile)
Website: http://www.thesandersfirmpc.com
19

Tricia Lara v. City of New York, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tricia Lara v. City of New York, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tricia Lara v. City of New York, Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-07542 Document 1 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, JURY DEMAND

THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DERBY ST. FORT, as Commanding

6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA

ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS; JOHN DOE 7; CLAUDIA PINZON; YULIA

BRAGINSKY; PHILIP DISANTO and SIBFAN OLYNYK'S actions and inactions of

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965, 28 U.S.C. §§

a. the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

2. The unlawful practices, violations of plaintiffs civil rights complained of herein

were committed within the Eastern District of New York.

4. Plaintiff TRICIA LARA is not required to exhaust any administrative procedures

prior to suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

racial and national origins and sociocultural groups.

6. Defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal corporation organized under

the laws of the State of New York.

7. Defendant DERBY ST. FORT, as Commanding Officer, 61st Precinct.

8. Defendant JOHN DOE 1, as Administrative Lieutenant, 61st Precinct.

9. Defendant JOHN DOE 2, as Operations Coordinator, 61st Precinct.

10. Defendant JOHN DOE 3, as Domestic Violence Sergeant, 61st Precinct.

11. Defendant JOHN DOE 4, as Patrol Supervisor, 61st Precinct.

12. Defendant JOHN DOE 5, as Detective Squad Commander, 61st Precinct.

13. Defendant WANYORY GARCIA, as Detective Squad Supervisor, 61st Precinct.

14. Defendant JOHN DOE 6, as Desk Officer, 61st Precinct.

15. Defendant ROBERT EMMANUEL, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.

16. Defendant RICHARD POWERS, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.

17. Defendant JOHN DOE 7, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.

18. Defendant CLAUDIA PINZON, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.

19. Defendant YULIA BRAGINSKY, as Police Officer, 61st Precinct.

20. Defendant PHILIP DISANTO, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct.

21. Defendant STEFAN OLYNYK, as Detective, Detective Squad, 61st Precinct.

DOE 5; WANYORY GARCIA; JOHN DOE 6; ROBERT EMMANUEL; RICHARD POWERS;

311 complaints sent to the 61st Precinct.

and the general public.

FORT claimed there was no manipulation but, simply `coding errors.'

domestic violence and the general public.

to approximately 230,000 domestic incidents annually, or nearly six-hundred calls a day.

domestic violence office.

arrests and malicious prosecutions were not applied.

resident and leaseholder of a residential apartment located in the County of Kings.

property related crimes and frauds here and abroad in Trinidad.

surveillance camera was operational.

when the doorbell rang.

striking her in the chest twice with her fists.

pain and to fear for her life and property.

Defendant JOHN DOE 7.

apartment initiated by Ansila E. Bryant.

inside of the precinct.

actions and demands for her arrest.

Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL to ensure they properly

EMMANUEL. Meanwhile, Defendants' RICHARD POWERS and ROBERT EMMANUEL

on a nearby cabinet in the living room.

the willingness of a person to testify or otherwise participate in a judicial proceeding.

self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny

of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from

imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person...

reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably

believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal