SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF THE BRONX EUNICE VILASECA SUMMONS Plaintiff, -against- Index No: BOS UG \t q ‘THE CITY OF NEW YORK; KEVIN MALONEY; as, Captain, Commanding Officer of Public Service Area 8; DENNIS AZAMBUJA, as Lieutenant PSA 8; KRISTEN McKEE, as Lieutenant PSA 8; KARL WEBER as Lieutenant PSA 8; BRIAN QUERY, as Sergeant PSA 8; ROSEMARY DAVIS, as Sergeant PSA 8; JOHN GRASSO, as Sergeant PSA 8; DAVID EGAN, as Sergeant PSA 8; LUIS HERNANDEZ, as Sergeant PSA 8; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN, as Sergeant PSA 8; STEVE CARO, as Sergeant PSA 8; and MICHAEL TORPEY, as Sergeant PSA 8, each being sued individually in their official capacities as, employees of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants’ To the above-named defendants’ THE CITY OF NEW YORK; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER, BRIAN QUERY, ROSEMARY DAVIS, JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff's attomey, at the address stated below, an answer to the attached Verified Complaint. If this summons was personally served upon you by the State of New York, the answer must be served within twenty days after such service of the summons, excluding the date of service. If the summons was not personally delivered to you within the State of New York, the answer must be served within thirty days after service of the summons is complete as provided by law. If you do not serve an answer to the attached complaint within the applicable timelimitation stated above, a judgment may be entered against you, by default, for the relief demanded in the complaint, without further notice to you. ‘The action will be heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of the Bronx, 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, N.Y. 10451. This action is brought in the County of the Bronx because the defendant’s actions occurred in the County of the Bronx. Dated: June 17,2014 ‘New York, NY Respectfully submitted, By: c Bric Sanders Eric Sanders, Esq. THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9" Floor New - NY 10036 ‘Website: http://www.thesandersfirmpe.comSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF THE BRONX EUNICE VILASECA VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, AND JURY DEMAND -against- Index No.: THE CITY OF NEW YORK, KEVIN MALONEY; as Captain, Commanding Officer of Police Service Area No.: 8; DENNIS AZAMBUJA, as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8; KRISTEN MCKEE, as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8; KARL WEBER, as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8; BRIAN QUERY, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; ROSEMARY DAVIS, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; JOHN GRASSO, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; DAVID EGAN, as ‘Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; LUIS HERNANDEZ, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN, as Sergeant, Police Area No.: 8; STEVE CARO, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; and MICHAEL TORPEY, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; each being sued individually in their official capacities as employees of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants’ “x ‘The plaintiff EUNICE VILASECA, by her attorney THE SANDERS FIRM, P.C., as and for her verified complaint against defendants’ THE CITY OF NEW YORK; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY, respectfully set forth and allege that: INTRODUCTI ‘This is an action for equitable relief and money damages on behalf of the plaintiff EUNICE VILASECA, (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff”) whose rights are being deprivedas a result of defendants’ THE CITY OF NEW YORK; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S discriminatory conduct. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to New York State Executive Law § 296 and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. 2. The unlawful practices, violations of plaintiff's statutory rights as an employee complained of herein were committed within New York, Bronx, and Westchester counties. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 3. Plaintiff filed suit with this Court within the applicable statute of limitations period. 4, Plaintiff is not required to exhaust any administrative procedures prior to suit. PLAINTIFF 5. Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States of America over twenty-one (21) years of age, a resident of Bronx County, and employee of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK (hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”) more specifically the Police Department City of ‘New York (hereinafter referred to as the “NYPD”). DEFENDANTS’ 6. Defendant CITY is a municipal corporation under the law of the State of New York, and at all relevant time plaintiff's employer. 7. Defendants’ KEVIN MALONEY (Caucasian Male), as Captain, Police Service Area No.: 8, DENNIS AZAMBUJA (Light Skinned Hispanic Male), as Lieutenant, PoliceService Area No.: 8., KRISTEN MCKEE (Caucasian Female), as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8, KARL WEBER (Caucasian Male), as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8, BRIAN QUERY (African-American Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, ROSEMARY DAVIS (African-American Female), as Sergeant, Police Service Area Ni JOHN GRASSO (Caucasian Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, DAVID EGAN (Caucasian Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, LUIS HERNANDEZ, (Hispanic Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, BRENDAN MAGUFFIN, (Caucasian Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, STEVE CARO, (Caucasian Male), as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8, and MICHAEL TORPEY, (Caucasian Male), as Sergeant, Police Service ‘Area No.: 8. BACKGROUND 8. Plaintiff, a Medium Brown Skinned Dominican! female employee of the NYPD alleges from June 19, 2011 through late 2012 she has been subjected to highly offensive discriminatory conduct from defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA (Light Skinned Hispanic Male). 9. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA openly announced in Police Service Area No.: 8 he has a “Hit List” with African-American and Hispanic officers on it because he dislikes them due to their race. 10. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA “Hit List” also included ‘Caucasian male officers who closely affiliated themselves with African-American and Hispanic officers. | Most individuals who identify themselves as Dominicans are from the Caribbean island of Hispaniola (Dominican Republic/Haiti), which were originally inhibited by the Tainos Indians and the Kalinago (Carib) people. Both these peoples have their origins in South America but with the arrival of Europeans sometime around 1492 it caused the ‘emergence of various lighter hues that are currently found on the island. Therefore, she self identifies as “Hispanic”. 311, Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA openly makes racially offensive jokes and comments about African-Americans. 12, Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA openly refers to females as, “Bitches”. 13. Plaintiff alleges the Department had actual or constructive notice of defendant DENNIS AZAMBIUA discriminatory conduct as such conduct occurred in front of KEVIN MALONEY; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY. 14, Plaintiff alleges these police supervisors actively participated, ratified, condoned, or acquiesced to defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct. 15. Plaintiff alleges she has filed numerous complaints have been filed with the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Intemal Affairs about defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S discriminatory conduct. 16. Plaintiff alleges Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch (Caucasian Male) gave numerous witness statements to support her claims. 17. Plaintiff alleges Department mechanisms have done nothing to protect her or ‘Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch from defendants’ KEVIN MALONEY, KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S discriminatory conduct, 18. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KEVIN MALONEY and DENNIS AZAMBUJA as. well other police supervisors retaliated against her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch byfiling falsified disciplinary charges, transferring them to an undesirable tour, undesirable patrol assignments etc. 19. Plaintiff alleges on or about June 19, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA told defendants’ ROSEMARY DAVIS and JOHN GRASSO he had a “Hit List” and he is going to “crush the officers” on the list. 20. Plaintiff alleges the “Hit List” is similar in nature to the one maintained by (deceased) former NYPD Chief of Personne! Michael Markman (Caucasian Male) as discovered in Patricia A. Raniola v. The City of New York, et al., 243 F3d 610 (2*Cir. 2001), 21. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ ROSEMARY DAVIS and JOHN GRASSO did not report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 22. Plaintiff alleges on or about June 21, 2011 defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS told her and other officers during Roll Call that meals would be denied unless approved by defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA. 23. Plaintiff alleges defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS did not report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct to the Office of Employment Opportunity of the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 24, Plaintiff alleges on or about July 21, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA was reading a supermarket circular and made the following racially insensitive comments in front of her, defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch: “Hey Rose there is a sale on bananas. Get it, bananas and monkeys”, “Sergeant Trevor Allen (African-American Male) looks like an “Oreo Cookie”, “Women are “Bitches”, and referred to his wife as a “Bitch” because she allegedly cheated on him and got pregnant.25. Plaintiff alleges defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS did not report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S discriminatory conduct to the Office of Employment Opportunity of the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 26. Plaintiff alleges on or about August 18, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA. made a racially offensive remark regarding the texture of her “Spanish hair.” 27. Plaintiff alleges defendant JOHN GRASSO told her “He (meaning defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA) made me put you in the Minor Violations Log.” 28. Plaintiff alleges defendant JOHN GRASSO did not report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S discriminatory conduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 29. Plaintiff alleges on or about August 21, 2011, she approached defendant KEVIN MALONEY about defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct. 30. Plaintiff alleges she told defendant KEVIN MALONEY about defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA “Hit List”, racially insensitive remarks, ete. 31. Plaintiff alleges she told defendant KEVIN MALONEY that she wanted to make an EEO complaint against defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA. 32. Plaintiff further alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY asked her “Are you sure?” 33. Plaintiff alleges she replied, “Yes.” 34, Plaintiff alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY appeared annoyed. 35. Plaintiff alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY violated Department policy by asking if she wanted to make an EEO. 36. Plaintiff further alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY already knew that in accordance to Department policy defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct‘ust be reported to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Internal Affairs Bureau. 37. Plaintiff alleges on or about August 22, 2011 Roll Call Senior Police ‘Administrative Aide Shirley Cheatham contacted her to rescind her approved day off as, instructed by defendant KEVIN MALONEY. 38. Plaintiff alleges Senior Police Administrative Aide Cheatham told her there was adequate coverage and could not understand why her day off was rescinded. 39. Plaintiff alleges on or about August 24, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA told her in front of defendant JOHN GRASSO near the Desk Area that he is going to get cops on his “Hit List” and stared at her. 40. Plaintiff alleges she surmises defendant KEVIN MALONEY told defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA about her discrimination complaints. 41. Plaintiff alleges defendant JOHN GRASSO did not report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S discriminatory conduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 42. Plaintiff alleges on or about September 1, 2011, she called the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity to report defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct as well as defendant KEVIN MALONEY and other police supervisors’ failing to report defendant DENNIS AZ AMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct. 43. Plaintiff alleges on September 4, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA ordered her to escort several prisoners into Bronx Central Booking alone in violation of Department policy.44, Plaintiff alleges on or about September 11, 2011 defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS intentionally fabricated a command discipline against her, Serial No.: 96-11, falsely accusing her of failing to have proper equipment (escape hood) while on patrol. 45. Plaintiff alleges defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS knew it is custom and practice at Police Service Area No.: 8 that officers assigned to a fixed hospital post do not carry the escape hood because they are not on patrol. 46. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE, as Integrity Control Officer, and KEVIN MALONEY, as Commanding Officer, knew this was custom and practice but did not void the command discipline. 47. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KEVIN MALONEY and KRISTEN MCKEE did not discipline defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS for fabricating the command discipline or report her misconduct to the Office Equal Employment Opportunity and Internal Affairs as required by Department policy. 48. Plaintiff alleges upon returning from fixed hospital post defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS denied her a meal period. 49, Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA tossed her a set of keys to RMP No.: 5056 then raced outside to the street. 50. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA raises her on the Department radio to meet him so he can inspect her Activity Log. 51. Plaintiff alleges before she went to meet defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA she inspected RMP No.: 5056 and found simulated decks of heroin marked “Please return to the ICO.”52. Plaintiff alleges she notifies defendant ROSEMARY DAVIS, who is the Desk Officer, who responds, “Oh, you found it?” 53. Plaintiff alleges she walked away in disgust. 54. Plaintiff alleges she believes defendants’ DENNIS AZAMBUJA and ROSEMARY DAVIS intentionally targeted her for the unauthorized Targeted Integrity Test. 55. Plaintiff alleges it is no secret that defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA, who was the former Integrity Control Officer, trained defendant KRISTEN MCKEE to perform such duties and retains a set of keys to the Integrity Control Office in violation of Department policy. 56. Plaintiff alleges on or about September 18, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA ordered her and Non-Party Witness Police Officer Rafael Sanchez to perform a reverse Vertical Patrol, from the lobby of the building to the roof in violation of the Patrol Guide procedures that clearly states, “Vertical Patrols are performed from the roof to the lobby.” 57. Plaintiff alleges these patrols are performed in this manner because officers walking up the stairs are more vulnerable to attack. 58. Plaintiff alleges Non-Party Witness Rafael Sanchez while performing reverse Vertical Patrol started experiencing shortness of breath and chest pains, he had to be taken to the hospital, 59. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA wanted her to falsify the Witness Statement as well as the Aided Report that was going to be attached to Non-Party Witness Rafael Sanchez’ s Line of Duty Report, claiming defendant DENNIS AZAMBUIA was not on the scene and did not order them to perform a reverse Vertical Patrol. 60. Plaintiff alleges she refused to file falsified statements.61. Plaintiff alleges she gave the original documents to Non-Party Witness Rafael ‘Sanchez but they were never filed. 62. Plaintiff alleges she eventually notified the Intemal Affairs Bureau, 63. Plaintiff alleges on September 30, 2011 defendant DAVID EGAN intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 108/11 falsely accusing her of failing to voucher a prisoner’s vehicle in timely manner although he already knew the custom and practice at Police Service Area No.: 8 was vehicles not being stored as evidence are generally legally parked near the command then to be picked up by a family member or friend without being vouchered. 64. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY knew this was custom and practice but did not void the command discipline. 65. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY did not discipline defendant DAVID EGAN for fabricating the command discipline or report his conduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Intemal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy 66. Plaintiff alleges in or around early October 2011 after Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch gave a statement to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity supporting her allegations, defendant DENNIS AZ.AMBUJA and other police supervisors started placing her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch to work together to isolate them. 67. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA and other police supervisors. immediately commenced filing a barrage of disciplinary actions against her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch from minor violations to Schedule A Command Disciplines and 10intentionally “warehousing” them so they can bring formal Charges and Specifications against them. 68. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN McKEE and KEVIN MALONEY were aware of defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct and did nothing to protect her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch. 69. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY actively participated ratified condoned, or acquiesced to defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S. discriminatory conduct. 70. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 4, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA waited until she was alone and isolated inside of Roll Call making copies before appearing, suddenly, advanced quickly toward her and pinned her next to the copier. 71. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA while standing directly over her with his body touching hers and said in a raised voice, “I don’t like the way you filled out the Line of Duty Reports for Police Officer Sanchez.” 72. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S behavior startled her and she pushed her way past him and ran out the office. 73. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 5, 2011 while assigned to Post 8N Non-Party Witness Rafael Sanchez and defendant LUIS HERNANDEZ, the Assistant Integrity Control Officer, handed her a written version of the changes defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA wanted her to make on her Witness Statement and Aided Report of Non-Party Witness Rafael Sanchez’s Line of Duty Report. 74, Plaintiff alleges she refused to make defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S suggested changes and notified the Internal Affairs Bureau. u75. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 10, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA. intentionally assigned her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch to RMP No.: 9204, which had mechanical problems related to its cooling and air conditioning unit. 76. Plaintiff alleges with 90-degree weather outside, the temperature inside the RMP was approximately 100 degrees or so and although there were four (4) other RMPs at the command defendant BRIAN QUERY refused to reassign them to another RMP. 77. Plaintiff alleges later in the day while performing a Vertical Patrol inside of 2140 Seward Avenue, she started experiencing dizziness, nausea, and chest pains, fell unconscious on the 6th floor landing, and had to be rushed to the hospital. 78. Plaintiff alleges she suffered a heat stroke and defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA intentionally interfered with her right to work related medical coverage by failing to file the appropriate Line of Duty Report 79. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY was aware of her injuries but did nothing to protect her rights and actively participated, ratified, condoned, or acquiesced to defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S discriminatory conduct. 80. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 13, 2011 while at the NYPD Medical Division being examined by the Department Surgeon, an ambulance was dispatched and she was rushed to Montefiore Hospital due to lingering effects of the heat stroke. 81. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 8, 2011 defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA ordered her and Non-party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch to clean the toilet, take out the garbage, and clean the cell area where prisoners are temporarily lodged causing her to change clothes four (4) times that day. 1282. Plaintiff alleges defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA ordered her and Non-Party ‘Witness Glenn Bysterbusch to appear the next day for a detail at 0530 hours in lower Manhattan. 83. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 9, 2011 defendant BRENDAN MAGUFFIN intentionally caused her and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch to be late to the detail in lower Manhattan by assigning them a RMP one hour after their arrival to the command. 84. Plaintiff alleges defendant STEVE CARO intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No. 121/11 falsely accusing her of arriving 15 minutes late to the detail when he already knew that she and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch were not assigned a RMP until an hour later. 85. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew defendant BRENDAN MAGUFFIN intentionally assigned her and her partner a RMP late but did not void the command discipline. 86. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY did not discipline defendant STEVE CARO for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 87. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 14, 2011 defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 125/11, falsely accusing her of committing four (4) minor violations when he already knew she was never notified. 88. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated Command Discipline 13against her but did not void the command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 89. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 16, 2011 defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 132/11 falsely accusing her of entering improper notes into her Activity Log. 90. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her but, did not void the command discipline, discipline defendant MICHAEL TORPEY for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 91. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 28, 2011, defendant BRIAN QUERY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 134/11 falsely accusing her of being Absent Without Official Leave (A.W.O.L.) and leaving the command without notifying the Desk Officer. 92. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew defendant BRIAN QUERY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her but, did not void the command discipline, discipline defendant BRIAN QUERY for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy 93. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 23, 2011, she approached defendant KEVIN MALONEY about the on-going constant assignment changes, unfair discipline and ‘workplace hostility that had been going on since June 19, 2011. 494, Plaintiff alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY appeared annoyed, bothered and troubled and already knew that in accordance with Department policy, discriminatory and retaliatory conduct must be reported to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 95. Plaintiff alleges defendant KEVIN MALONEY failed to notify the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 96. Plaintiff alleges on or about November 25, 2011 defendant BRIAN QUERY ordered her to clean the command, which included 20 — 30 heavy garbage bags. 97. Plaintiff alleges on or about December 5, 2011 defendant KARL WEBER intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 139/11, falsely accusing her of failing to follow proper Roll Call procedures. 98. Plaintiff alleges defendant KARL WEBER already knew that defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA and other police supervisors were constantly changing her assignments in violation of Department policy as well as the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 99. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew about these violations of Department policy as well as the Collective Bargaining Agreement but, did not void the command discipline, discipline defendant KARL WEBER for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 100. Plaintiff alleges on or about December 8, 2011 defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 141/11 accusing her of being COBRA qualified and her equipment missing, when in fact she was never COBRA. qualified nor was she ever issued COBRA equipment. 15101. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already knew that defendant MICHAEL TORPEY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her but, did not void the command discipline or discipline defendant MICHAEL TORPEY for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 102. Plaintiff alleges on or about December 10, 2011 defendant BRIAN QUERY intentionally filed a fabricated command discipline against her, Serial No.: 142/11, accusing her of being discourteous to a supervisor. 103. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KRISTEN MCKEE and KEVIN MALONEY already new that defendant BRIAN QUERY had filed numerous fabricated command disciplines against her but, did not void the command discipline, discipline defendant BRIAN QUERY for fabricating this command discipline or report his misconduct to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity or the Internal Affairs Bureau as required by Department policy. 104. — Plaintiff alleges on or about December 19, 2011 defendant KEVIN MALONEY intentionally transferred her to the midnight tour, causing a family hardship. 105. Plaintiff alleges on or about May 8, 2012 defendant KEVIN MALONEY requested formal Charges and Specifications to be filed against her 106. Plaintiff alleges sometime in summer 2012 she was served with formal Charges and Specifications. 107. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 12, 2012 defendant KRISTEN MCKEE, falsely reported to the Medical Division that she was having psychological problems. 16108. Plaintiff alleges she was picked up at her residence, forced to turn over her firearm, and driven to the NYPD Psychological Services, the same tactic performed through the history of the Department after reporting misconduct. 109. Plaintiff alleges the Department Psychologist determined that she was not going to harm herself but placed her on Restricted Duty. 110. Plaintiff alleges she was then transferred toa VIPER Unit. 111. Plaintiff alleges on or about March 11, 2013, she was forced to defend herself in the disciplinary trial that was commenced against her in the Matter of The Police Department City of New York v. Police Officer Eunice Vilaseca Department Advocate’s Office Serial No.: 2012-7503. 112. Plaintiff alleges on or about October 28, 2013, she was found guilty of failure to have proper equipment (escape hood), failure to properly voucher vehicle for safekeeping, failure to properly fill out a summons, and discourtesy. The recommended penalty was the forfeiture of forty (40) days vacation. 113. Plaintiff alleges she disagrees with the decision and analysis of Assistant Deputy Commissioner - Trials David S. Weisel. 114, Plaintiff alleges Assistant Deputy Commissioner ~ Trials David S. Weisel intentionally did not include evidence nor evaluate admissible evidence that tended to support her version of events regarding unfair discipline in for complaining about race and gender discrimination, 115. Plaintiff alleges Assistant Deputy Commissioner - Trials David S. Weisel’s decision was drafted from the point of judicial activism and for a specific result on behalf of the iDepartment, substituting his own personal opinion and judgments irrespective of the applicable department policies and practices, rules of evidence and laws of discrimination. 116. Plaintiff alleges the NYPD Patrol Guide (Department Manual) is only a guide for officers and supervisors and does not contain distinct instruction for every situation that an officer may encounter. 117. Plaintiff alleges in an excerpt from the foreword of the NYPD Patrol Guide signed by the Police Commissioner it states: “In accordance with Procedure No. 200-01, the Department Manual serves as a guide for ALL members of service. All supervisors are expected to be even more knowledgeable to facilitate their ability to lead, train, supervise, and discipline subordinates. Members are expected to perform their duties in accordance with the legal requirements of their position and the extensive training they have received. All members of the Department will be held accountable for their actions and should maintain the highest professional standards” 118. Plaintiff alleges with respect to the COBRA equipment, the Department Manual in Procedure No. 204-09 states “Lieutenants, sergeants, and police officers performing patrol duty in uniform are required to carry or wear the following equipment as authorized or indicated... Based on the training module, not only would an uncertified officer would be unauthorized to use such equipment, the improper use without training would endanger the life of the officer and that of others.” 119. Plaintiff alleges habit evidence is admissible because one who has demonstrated a consistent response under given circumstance is more likely to repeat that response when the circumstances arise again, evidence of habit has, since the days of the common-law reports, generally been admissible to prove conformity on specified occasions. Halloran v. Virginia 18Chemicals. Inc., 41 N.Y. 2d 386, 390-391, Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns, 375, 384, Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), s 92, Richardson, Evidence (10" ed.), s 185, Fed. Rules of Evidence, Rule 406, see generally, Lewan, Rationale of Habit Evidence, 16 Syracuse L. Rev. 39). 120. Plaintiff alleges New York has followed the rule allowing a business, professional or other institutional practice or custom to be used to show that such would have been followed under the same set of circumstances on a specific occasion. Beakes v. DaCunba, 126 N.Y. 293. 298, 27 N.E, 251, 252 (1891), John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Perchikov, 553 F. Supp.2d 229 (E.DN.Y. 2008)(testimony concerning the customary office procedure in putting together and mailing out a copy of insurance policy is sufficient under New York law to raise a presumption of proper mailing, and mere denial of receipt by the insured without more is insufficient to rebut that presumption). 121. Plaintiff alleges according to the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 406, Evidence of an organizations routine practice is admissible provided the proponent of the evidence establishes that the organization acted with “regularity over substantially all other parties with whom the [organization] has had similar business transactions.” Mobil Exploration & Producing US., Inc. v. Cajun Constr. Servs., Inc. 45 F.3d 96, 100 (5 Cir. 1995) 122. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; MICHAEL TORPEY and others, retaliated against her in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law after she complained about race and gender discrimination in the workplace. 123. Plaintiff alleges she began complaining about defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S race and gender discrimination in June 201 lunlike Assistant Deputy Commissioner — TrialsDavid 8. Weisel’s decision that indicates defendant DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S knowledge of her complaints began in October or November 2011. 124, Plaintiff alleges she and Non-Party Witness Glenn Bysterbusch testified her complaints began with her complaining about disparaging remarks made about African- Americans, Hispanics, Jewish and female officers including supervisors long before October or November 2011. 125, Plaintiff alleges every minor violation, command discipline or charge and specifications since June 2011 must be viewed as possible retaliation, carefully analyzing the motivations of the defendants’ to lie and unfortunately, in Assistant Deputy Commissioner — Trials David S. Weisel’s decision this was not done. VIOLATIONS AND CLAIMS ALLEGED COUNTI RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296 126. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 125 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 125 of Count I of this Verified Complaint. 127. New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq., makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race. 128. Based upon the foregoing, defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY and DENNIS AZAMBUIA discriminated against her based upon her race. 129. Asa direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUJA, she has suffered the indignity of race discrimination and great humiliation. 20130. Asarresult of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S violations, she has been damaged. COUNT IL GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW §296 131, Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 130 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 130 of Count II of this Verified Complaint. 132, New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq., makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of gender. 133. Based upon the foregoing, defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY and DENNIS AZAMBUIA discriminated against her based upon her gender. 134. As adirect and proximate result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUSA, she has suffered the indignity of gender discrimination and great humiliation, 135, Asaresult of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY and DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S violations she has been damaged. COUNT II RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF NW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296 136. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 135 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 135 of Count III of this Verified Complaint. 137. New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq.; makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race 21and gender. The law also makes it unlawful to an atmosphere where retaliation is encouraged and/or tolerated. 138. Based on the foregoing, CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY, unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about the unlawful employment practices to which she has been subjected. 139, Asa further and proximate result of these unlawful employment practices, she has suffered extreme mental anguish, depression, severe disruption of his personal and professional life, and loss of enjoyment in the ordinary pleasures of life. 140. Asa result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S she has been damaged. COUNT IV HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EXECUTIVE LAW § 296 141. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 140 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 139 of Count IV of this Verified Complaint. 142. New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq., makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race. ‘The law also makes it unlawful to create a severe and hostile environment where retaliation, race and gender discrimination are encouraged and/or tolerated. 22143. Asadirect and proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUIA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY, she has suffered the indignity of race and gender discrimination and great humiliation. 144, Asa further and proximate result of these unlawful employment practices, she has suffered extreme mental anguish, depression, severe disruption of her personal and professional life, and loss of enjoyment in the ordinary pleasures of life, 145. Asaresult of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN. GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S violations, she has been damaged. COUNT V RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107 146. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 146 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 146 of Count V of this Verified Complaint. 147. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race, 148. Based upon the foregoing defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY and DENNIS AZAMBUIA discriminated against her based upon her race. 149, Asa direct and proximate result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUJA, she has suffered the indignity of race discrimination and great ‘humiliation. 23150. Asa result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUJA’S violations, she has been damaged. COUNT VI GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107 151. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 150 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 150 of Count VI of this Verified Complaint, 152. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of gender. 153. Based upon the foregoing, defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS. AZAMBUIA, discriminated against her based upon her gender. 154, 147, Asa direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUJA, she has suffered the indignity of race discrimination and great humiliation, 155, Asa result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; and DENNIS AZAMBUIA’S violations, she has been damaged, COUNT VIL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107 156. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 155 and incorporates them by reference as paragraphs 1 through 155 of Count VII of this Verified Complaint. 157. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107 makes it unlawful to discriminated against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race 24and gender. The law also makes it unlawful to create an atmosphere where retaliation is encouraged and/or tolerated, 158. Based upon the foregoing, defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY unlawfully retaliated against her for complaining about the unlawful employment practices to which she has been subjected. 159. Asa result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN. GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S retaliation, she has been damaged. COUNT Vu HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE § 8-107 160. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraph 1 through 159 and incorporates them by reference as paragraph 1 through 159 of Count VIII of this Verified Complaint. 161. New York Administrative Code § 8-107 makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race and gender. The law also makes it unlawful to create a severe and hostile environment where retaliation, race, and gender discrimination are encouraged and/or tolerated. 162. Asa direct and proximate result of the unlawful employment practices of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUIA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS 25HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY she has suffered the indignity of race and gender discrimination and great humiliation. 163. As a further and proximate result of these unlawful employment practices, she had suffered extreme mental anguish, depression, severe disruption of her personal and professional life, and loss of enjoyment in the ordinary pleasures of life. 164. As a result of defendants’ CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY’S violations, she has been damaged. JURY TRIAI 165. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues in this action are so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages from defendants? CITY; KEVIN MALONEY; DENNIS AZAMBUJA; KRISTEN MCKEE; KARL WEBER; BRIAN QUERY; ROSEMARY DAVIS; JOHN GRASSO; DAVID EGAN; LUIS HERNANDEZ; BRENDAN MAGUFFIN; STEVE CARO; and MICHAEL TORPEY in the amount of $15 million dollars, plus any and all available statutory remedies, both legal and equitable, and interests and costs. 26Dated: June 17, 2014 New York, NY Respectful]y submitted, Eric Sanders Eric Sanders, Esq. THE SANDERS FIRM, P. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9" Floor Website: http://www.thesandersfirmpe.com 27TIO} STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF NEW yoRK), ERIC SANDERS, ESQ,, affirms as follows: Tam an attomey at law admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New ‘York, and I am the attorney for the defendant in the within action, and as such, am familiar with all the facts and circumstances therein. That the foregoing Verified Answer is true to the knowledge of affirmant, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those ‘matters he believes it to be true. Affirmant further states that the reason that this verification is made by affirmant and not by defendant is that defendant is not within the county of New York, where affirmant maintains his office. Affirmant further states, that the sources of his knowledge and information are reports of investigations, conversations, writings memoranda and other data concerning the subject matter of the litigation. The undersigned attorney affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury and pursuant to Rule 2106 CPLR.Dated: June 17,2014 ‘New York, NY Respectfully submited, oe CX Bric Sanders Eric Sanders, Esq. THE SANDERS FIRM, P. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9 Floor Website: http//www.thesandersfirmpe.comIndex No.: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF THE BRONX EUNICE VILASECA, Plaintiff, -against- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, KEVIN MALONEY; as Captain, Commanding Officer of Police Service Area No.: 8; DENNIS AZAMBUJA, as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8; KRISTEN MCKEE, as Lieutenant, Police Service ‘Area No.: 8; KARL WEBER, as Lieutenant, Police Service Area No.: 8; BRIAN QUERY, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; ROSEMARY DAVIS, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; JOHN GRASSO, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; DAVID EGAN, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; LUIS HERNANDEZ, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; BRENDAN ‘MAGUFFIN, as Sergeant, Police Area No.: 8; STEVE CARO, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; and MICHAEL TORPEY, as Sergeant, Police Service Area No.: 8; each being sued individually in their official capacities as employees of defendant THE CITY OF NEW YORK Defendants’ VERIFIED COMPLAINT Duly submited by: Eric Sanders, Esq. ‘Attorney for Plaintiff EUNICE VILASECA ‘THESANDERS FIRM, P.C. 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9" Floor To: Attorney(s) for: Dated: Sir(3): Please take notice that the legal papers within is/are certified true and original under the jurisdiction referenced above and are property submittedffiled by the respective counsel so referenced.