NYPD Adds $121 Million In Settlements To Its $11.2 Billion Tab
from the soak-the...-um...-everybody dept
New York’s Finest continue to set the sort of records New York residents would rather the NYPD didn’t. The NYPD is not too big to fail. But it’s apparently too big to curtail.
In 2019, it capped off a spectacular two-year run in which it racked up over a half-billion in lawsuit settlements. That’s on top of what it was charging residents to do the sort of job that results in more than $250 million in settlements per year. Of course, the NYPD is the only cop shop in town, so to speak. So, it can get away with charging a premium for subpar service.
And oh what truly lousy service it is! Prosecutors around the city spent most of the last couple years dismissing hundreds of cases tainted by more than a dozen dirty cops. The worst of the bunch — narcotics detective Joseph Franco — was responsible for most of those. Franco was facing 26 criminal charges ranging from perjury to official misconduct, but managed to walk away from all of those after prosecutors did what prosecutors do best: withhold evidence from criminal defendants.
The numbers are in for this year. And while they may look like a significant improvement over the NYPD’s astounding 2018-2019 run, they’re actually worse than they were last year.
The city shelled out more than $121 million in police misconduct lawsuit settlements in 2022 — the highest amount meted out to NYPD abuse victims in at least five years, the Legal Aid Society said Thursday.
The payouts were $34 million more than the $87 million in settlements made in 2021, according to a five year look-back conducted by Legal Aid.
And last year’s number could be even higher, the group said. The Legal Aid Society’s analysis didn’t count money paid out by the City Comptroller’s office prior to the lawsuits ending up in court, according to Maggie Hadley, legal fellow with the agency’s Criminal Defense Practice’s Special Litigation Unit.
$121 million is some serious money. But it’s all a matter of perspective. Given that the city will end up spending nearly $11.2 billion to fund the NYPD this year, another $121 million isn’t that much more to ask from city residents. I mean… comparatively.
It’s not just the obscene amount of unnecessary spending. It’s what it was spent on.
Last year’s larger settlements included a $12 million payout involving two officers sued for leaving a young city resident paralyzed.
In May, a second $12 million settlement check was made out to Pablo Fernandez, who was wrongfully convicted in 1996 for a homicide that he did not commit. He served more than two decades in prison before his release, and the charges were dismissed.
Those two instances are truly horrifying. The smaller amounts are linked to less horrendous forms of power abuse, but it’s still the abuse of power. It costs real money to pay back people who have been wronged by NYPD officers. And yet, good money is thrown after bad year after year. That’s on top of annual budget increases the NYPD has come to expect, even if its level of service remains just as terrible as ever.
Next year’s total will be worse. The fiscal turkeys will be coming home to roost as the city pays off the hundreds of defendants wrongfully arrested, detained, or convicted due to years of misconduct by officers the NYPD chose to ignore. The NYPD has the luxury of ignoring the rot in its ranks. Lawsuit settlements may be reflected on its budget sheets, but no one employed by the NYPD is ever held directly financially responsible for the rights violations they’ve committed.
As long as the NYPD gets to play with other people’s money, it will never get better. And if the city is unwilling to tie at least some of its budget to effective discipline, it will continue to be nothing more than an enabler for the worst officers the NYPD employs.
Filed Under: civil liberties, civil rights, nypd, settlements
Comments on “NYPD Adds $121 Million In Settlements To Its $11.2 Billion Tab”
De-legal-fund the police
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
The New York City Council eliminated qualified immunity for city officers in March 2021. Maybe they shouldn’t have.
Re: Re:
Someone seems upset about the idea of cops being held accountable for their actions while in uniform.
Re: Re: Re: NYC ended QI in March of 2021
This article is about how bad the NYPD is and how their actions are costing NYC all this money. NYC ended QI in March of 2021 (almost 2 years ago). If ending QI is supposed to make police officers more accountable and therefore more concerned about civil rights, apparently it’s not working. What has happened in NYC is an exodus of officers to other cities. You don’t have to defund the police, just make the job so unappealing that no one will do it. Is that the goal?
Re: Re: Re:2
What has happened in NYC is an exodus of officers to other cities. You don’t have to defund the police, just make the job so unappealing that no one will do it. Is that the goal?
You mean they’re being looked after just like the pedo priests by the catholic church. Great look.
Re: Re: Re:3 exodus of officers to other cities
“Of all the jobs in public service, police officers have the most difficult one. They must make snap decisions under tense evolving and ever-changing circumstances. They risk their lives every single day in public service. “
I think they see it as being responsible for doing the job they were trained to do vs. being held responsible for the outcome of doing their job. The “tense evolving and ever-changing circumstances” are inevitably going to lead to mistakes.
If they didn’t cause the “tense evolving and ever-changing circumstances”, why should they be held financially responsible if they did as they were trained to do? If police officers are not protected, they simply won’t do the job. They will either quit or go to a department that will protect them.
Re: Re: Re:4
if they did as they were trained to do?
Great, then let’s start punishing the trainers then. Severely. Because if how some of these pieces of shit act is a result of their training, then I’m sure ready to call that bluff and start hanging the trainers and whoever was stupid enough to author the material they used front and center to answer to charges.
Let’s hope that the trainer in this instance is also a cop isn’t lost on you, because if that’s the kind of cops they’re churning out, that fucker needs to be nailed to a wall.
If police officers are not protected, they simply won’t do the job. They will either quit or go to a department that will protect them.
Then they’re free to go fuck their sensitive selves and go work in the private sector. I’m sure they’ll be able to find similar work with a similar salary, pension, and union to protect whatever fuckups their next adventure will bring.
I really don’t give anything close to a shit if some cop can’t take criticism of his or her work, or if it hurts their feelings. Don’t want public criticism, don’t work in the public sector.
And this is where eliminating qualified immunity comes in.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: I have a few hundred other questions, but let’s start with these.
Does your idea of removing QI mean that if someone doesn’t like the way a police officer arrested them, then they can sue that officer?
Will the officer have to pay for his own defense?
If an officer arrests someone that is later acquitted, will the officer be subject to a lawsuit?
If the officer followed his training to the letter, will he still be subject to a lawsuit?
Can officers be sued for their personal assets like their homes, cars, etc?
Can officers be sued if they don’t respond to a dangerous situation?
Can officers be sued for an untimely response?
Can officers be sued for not arresting someone?
If officers are under fire, can they be sued for collateral damage if they return fire?
Can officers be sure for not pursuing a suspect?
Will officers be able to counter-sue?
Will police officers be reimbursed for the time they spend defending themselves against civil suits?
Is there a limit to an officer’s financial liability? If so, what happens when that is reached?
Re: Re:
There are things I agree on about QI. The problem is how broadly it has been applied.
This is open for debate, but here are my answers to these questions… Note that it’s rarely a yes/no answer because reality can be complex, but my answers will cover default cases with no added circumstances. (Also, I’m pretty sure based on your comment history that you’re asking in bad faith. But the debate is useless nonetheless.)
No. That’s the one reason I don’t completely object to the concept of QI. Only how broadly is had been applied.
Yes, though unions can also handle the defense fees.
Not the city.
My answer is no. Not directly anyway.
What matters was the officer’s conduct, not the outcome of the suspect’s trial. There might be a case of abuse of force regardless of the suspect’s actual guilt.
Violently handling an innocent is worse, but irrelevant to the lawsuit.
It’s not about training. Though he can use that as an excuse outside of courts, training doesn’t constitute a legal defense.
Procedures and laws do.
If he did follow the law, then he’s innocent, period.
If he did follow procedure, he can plead that as a defense. Then the victim can sue the PD or the city for having bad procedures.
If he broke the law and procedure because his trainer told him to, then both the cop and the trainer are at fault. Ignoring the law is not a defense.
Yes. Like any other criminal.
As long as officers are not made personally responsible, they will have no incentive to change. Much like defense fees, unions can pick this up. How long will they be willing to pay for repeat offender cops, I wonder.
That’s more open for debate. I don’t think they should be sued in that case, but they should still be fired.
It’s their job to handle difficult situations and dangerous individuals. If they are not willing to, they don’t deserve the job. At the very least, they should be moved to administrative work. Unless they’re also afraid of paper cuts.
Same answer as the previous one.
Not in absolute.
If someone was running away and they had the choice of shooting them dead or letting them go, then no. Even if the suspect was actually guilty of something.
If the choice was letting someone go after they caught him, then they might have to explain their decision to keep their job.
Overall, I don’t think they can be sued unless there is also evidence of corruption. (e.g. the suspect turned out to be a friend, or the suspect bribed the cop.)
That’s a tough one.
My answer depends on the recklessness of the cops.
Running in an active shooter situation and blindly emptying his clip, that’s a yes. Shooting through walls, or more generally without clear line of sight with the target, that’s a yes. There are other cases, but the point is the recklessness of the officer(s) involve.
If they acted calmly, followed protocol and attempted to minimize the risk to civilians, even if one accidently gets hit, I’d say that there is no guilt. There might still be a case to be brought to court, and for a judge or jury to decide on this.
There are laws that punish reckless and harmful behavior, so there is nothing new here.
“be sued”, I’ll assume.
And that’s pretty similar to the “arrest” question above.
I would say no in general, except if corruption is involved.
If that happens too often though, this could be cause for termination. If you don’t do the job you get for… I already answered something along those lines above.
As much as any civilian is allowed to sue them or each other.
You see, I don’t consider cops as more liable than normal civilians. It’s just that they have more power, so they can be more often placed in a situation to abuse it. They don’t get more liable than civilians, but they have more opportunity to be liable for their actions.
But it applies the other way too: if they counter-sue just because they didn’t like being sued in the first place, they will have to prove that the original lawsuit was frivolous. They wouldn’t get extra right to counter sue just because they’re cops.
Much like any other worker. This can be part of the employment contract, but I don’t see this as a legal requirement. Unless it is a legal requirement for compensation to anyone having to skip work because of a lawsuit.
Why would we make exceptions for cops in this regard?
As much as there is for any other criminal.
Having a badge doesn’t exempt you from the law.
If your conduct is criminal, it doesn’t matter that you’re a cop, normal laws apply.
Overall, the idea is simple.
Cops that break the law or simply don’t do their jobs are to be treated mostly the same as anyone else. With the added option to charge them for abuse of power when applicable, because they were given a position of trust and authority, which means more responsibility not less.
Following procedure would be the basic requirement for QI defense, while training and experience are mostly irrelevant.
Also, the result of a cop’s behavior is less significant than the actions themselves. I mentioned that in the “can an innocent person sue a cop?” Being abusive or reckless can be cause for lawsuit. Being lazy or inept can be cause for termination. Actual harm is simply adding the need for compensation, and that compensation shouldn’t be billed to the city (i.e. the tax payers) because of one bad cop. Not even several.
Stop asking for cops to be treated like they are above the law because that simply puts everyone in danger. Because when criminals don’t have rights, then neither do you.
Re: Re: Re:
(My bad in the beginning: “the debate is useful nonetheless.”)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Will the officer have to pay for his own defense?
Plaintiffs’ attorney usually are paid by the settlement if they win, essentially making it free for the plaintiff to sue. Even if the defendant (the officer) wins he still has attorney’s fees, lost work, stress and financial consequences so he loses. Even if an officer wins every case, he could go bankrupt.
Re: Re: Re:2
Welcome to the real world.
This happens to normal citizens too. A lot. I don’t see why cops should be an exception.
If you want the system fixed, fix it for everyone. No reason to just make cops a privileged class.
Normal citizens already know that the justice system in the US is broken. More so for poor people who have little to say once they get caught in the gears. Cops are already privileged in many ways because they are part of the system, so it tends to go easy on them.
Why does it seem like you want cops to be even more privileged by being outright exempted from being targeted by lawsuits at all?
If that is not your intent, you have a lot to change in the way you communicate because the message you send is “I want cops to be above the law”.
If that is indeed your intent though… you may continue advocating for a police state. And we won’t agree. Ever.
Re: Re: Re:2
You realize that there is a very significant qualifier of “if they win”, right? You don’t think a lawyer is going to look at a case and evaluate whether a client is likely to win on the merits?
I get that you benefit from pushing a narrative that the floodgates have been opened on cops such that drug dealers and mass murders can now sue the police into oblivion, but that’s not the case. Even in normal day to day interactions, people don’t sue or have protracted litigation battles simply because someone’s feelings were hurt – and when they do it’s because some legal definitions or boundaries for defamation have been met. This idea that a criminal can sue a cop into destitution doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Re: Re: Doctor, after the operation, will I be able to play the piano?
Dave, Dave, Dave.
Let me ask you a question in return, just one.
Of all the questions you have asked, which (if any) are actually prohibited currently?
Perhaps you should be reminded: Qualified Immunity is a defense, not a bar to litigation. Nor yet is it an element in police union contracts, unless the union actually put it in there. And you should really be talking to the police unions, if you want an answer to that angle.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: My concerns
Currently
If the officers actions were not criminal he doesn’t have to pay for an attorney.
Officers using probable cause can not be sued for false arrest.
If an officer follows his training and procedures to the letter he is protected.
Lawsuits are directed against departments not individual officers.
Officers can not be sued for failing to protect someone from harm.
Concerned
Removing training and procedures as a defense puts the officer in a very vulnerable position. Literally “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”.
In a civil case you only need to prove loss in order to bring a lawsuit. If you call the police and they don’t show up in time that maybe argued as a loss.
In criminal trials, it requires a unanimous verdict, but in a civil trial it only requires a majority verdict. This lowered threshold along with the eagerness of unemployed attorneys to freely sue everyone over anything could make policing extinct.
Re: Re: Re:2
Currently
If the officers actions were not criminal he doesn’t have to pay for an attorney.
And if they are, the DA won’t charge them. Or the union will cover the attorney.
Officers using probable cause can not be sued for false arrest.
With ‘probable cause’ meaning nearly anything, including nothing at all.
If an officer follows his training and procedures to the letter he is protected.
And if he doesn’t he can just plead ignorance.
Lawsuits are directed against departments not individual officers.
Meaning there’s no incentive for personal responsibility.
Officers can not be sued for failing to protect someone from harm.
Which is funny, given they like that ‘Protect and Serve’ motto so much. Given how meaningless it is despite its prevalence, you may want to consider changing it to appear a bit more self-aware.
Concerned
Removing training and procedures as a defense puts the officer in a very vulnerable position. Literally “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”.
I’d love to see the training and specific procedures entered into evidence. Then maybe we can measure how little of it is actually followed, and how much is being made up and touted as ‘experience.’
In a civil case you only need to prove loss in order to bring a lawsuit. If you call the police and they don’t show up in time that maybe argued as a loss.
It’s a time sensitive job, and they’re being measured against a metric. Tough shit.
In criminal trials, it requires a unanimous verdict, but in a civil trial it only requires a majority verdict. This lowered threshold along with the eagerness of unemployed attorneys to freely sue everyone over anything could make policing extinct.
You can thank the DA’s that don’t criminally charge police that fuck up for that.
Re: Re: Re:2
The arguably shitty (yet also very stereotypical broadbrushing, which you have a penchant for using when it’s not used on cops) nature of ambulance-chasing lawyers aside, you can thank the guys who stood outside Uvalde and let a shooter have his way with the children and teachers while they thought the best thing to do was sit with their thumbs up their asses.
As you cop apologists love to boast to us normies, abuse a privilege enough and it gets taken away.
Re: Re:
Does your idea of removing QI mean that if someone doesn’t like the way a police officer arrested them, then they can sue that officer?
You mean like using excessive force or perhaps leaving an injured person in a cell without medical attention for hours? Yeah, sadistic pieces of shit like that should be sued.
Will the officer have to pay for his own defense?
Sure, why wouldn’t he? If he can’t afford an attorney, one can be appointed for him from the same pool as any other accused criminal. If it’s civil, he’s on his own. Just like the rest of us.
If an officer arrests someone that is later acquitted, will the officer be subject to a lawsuit?
Nothing more or less than they already are now.
If the officer followed his training to the letter, will he still be subject to a lawsuit?
He sure will. Just following orders didn’t work at Nuremburg, and it surprises me that they would want to be associated with those who used it there.
Can officers be sued for their personal assets like their homes, cars, etc?
Sure, why not? Who else’s assets would be on the table?
Can officers be sued if they don’t respond to a dangerous situation?
They’d be reprimanded to the point of termination, just like any other employee who refuses to do their fucking job.
Can officers be sued for an untimely response?
See previous response.
Can officers be sued for not arresting someone?
I guess I don’t understand the question, especially with respect to QI. It seems like you’re making an argument that cops really have no idea what they’re doing at all.
If officers are under fire, can they be sued for collateral damage if they return fire?
Definitely! Unless you want to argue that in addition to not having to know the law, they also don’t have to be proficient in using their weapons.
Can officers be sure for not pursuing a suspect?
It depends on the circumstances. If it’s a matter of being lazy, then I’d say fire the bum.
Will officers be able to counter-sue?
If they can afford it.
Will police officers be reimbursed for the time they spend defending themselves against civil suits?
Nope. Just like the rest of us.
Is there a limit to an officer’s financial liability?
Nope. Just like the rest of us.
If so, what happens when that is reached?
They go broke. Just like the rest of us.
We gave them QI and they proved time and time again that they couldn’t be trusted with it. If you want someone to blame, blame the cops who fucked it up for the rest of you.
Do a better job of policing your own next time. Otherwise, we’ll do it for you.
low pay out
with it being one of the highest priced city’s. the lawsuit pay out’s are pathetic! $12M for paralyzing someone? it should have been $30+M! $12M for 20+ years in prison? once again too low! another example… a family got there door kicked in 3 times! it was a wrong door every time! they got a paltry $39K! and these blue lies mafia criminals are going though millions in lawsuits every year! with the # of violations that do make it to court. how many don’t? that # must be staggering!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Promting website
Hello Every One we are buildup nutrition we provide best and good 100% pure Protein please visit our website
http://www.buildupnutrition.com
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Good
Construction & Engineering gives organizations complete visibility across the business while enabling the real-time management of opportunities & proposals, equipment & assets, maintenance, project management, invoicing, and more https://www.imark360.com/construction.php
We don’t know why people have little respect for cops…
Maybe if you decided to fire and charge the 2 who paralyzed someone…
Maybe if you decided to fire and charge those who put an innocent man in jail for years…
People murdered over a tail light being out and no charges ever filed…. but they did manage to leak all the bad details about the dead person… but we never get to see that this is the 5th fscking time someone ended up dead when this officer showed up on the scene.
and the Police dept is actually worse, the Police Officers are actually worse and the protection for what was, at one time, the best police force in the world, from The Union is greater than ever! how can it ever change? how can it ever revert to what it once was? how can it ever restore it’s former glory?
Play the odds...
As an NYC resident, you are more likely to get millions from the NYPD than from playing the lottery.
Obviously you don't want police
Obviously you don’t want police so what is your solution for law enforcement?
Re:
Obviously you don’t want police so what is your solution for law enforcement?
What’s your solution?
More fealty to cops, no matter how piss poor a job they do? Maybe you’re fine with paying for shit work. I’d suggest you improve your standards.
My solution
What I want is for police officers to be trained to act within the law and when they do, to be protected by the law regardless of the outcome. If you train a police officer to tackle a fleeing suspect, then don’t charge him with assault when he does. Don’t allow him to be sued if his actions are within his training.
I would like to see a federal standard for training that states and cities would have to follow and since some states have different laws, that training shouldn’t conflict with the federal standard.
It needs to be acknowledged that sometimes those snap decisions are going to result in a mistake. A board to oversee the police must decide whether the officers’ mistake warrants criminal or civil action. I don’t care who sits on that board. It could be activists, ex cops, whomever and I would accept that it would have to be a majority vote in order to grant immunity. Once immunity for that act is granted, the officer can’t be sued. Frivolous lawsuits against police can’t become a cottage industry for idle lawyers.
“One bullet from death. One mistake from prison. One hurt feeling from bankruptcy.” People will not work under those conditions.
Re:
What I want is for police officers to be trained to act within the law and when they do, to be protected by the law regardless of the outcome.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now that you’ve trotted out that same old tripe again, what do we do with the shitbags who are:
I’m not interested in more protections for asshole cops who already abuse QI as it is. It’s time to attack the problem, not coddle insolent assholes more.
Re: Re: Let's see what happens
What I should have said–
“One bullet from death. One mistake from prison. One hurt feeling from bankruptcy.” People will not work under those conditions no matter how altruistic their character.
We have NYC and Colorado eliminate QI, let’s see how it works out.
Re: Re: Re:
“One bullet from death. One mistake from prison. One hurt feeling from bankruptcy.” People will not live under those conditions no matter how much the police demand it.
FTFY
Re: Re: Re:
No one is going to seriously believe that a drugged-up thug and a lawyer looking for a cheap win will be able to pursue successful litigation against a cop backed up by his district’s police department and the resources under their control.
Your rant sounds like the complaints of a bully who, after spending years punching their victim in the eye, is shocked to find out that the victim punches them back with maybe a tenth of the strength.
Thanks for social bookmarking websites list. Really it gonna help many freshers to bookmark their websites/posts, etc. it has various advantages as mentioned above but most importantly it has the main advantage to bloggers, free social bookmarking websites will help them fetch traffic to their websites. When anyone submits any link to any famous bookmarking website, it gets tonnes of free attention and traffic.
https://www.bangzfamilysalon.com/