FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Case Centers on Alleged Sexual Assault Inside NYPD Headquarters and Raises Substantial Questions of Retaliation, Workplace-Safety Concealment, and First Amendment Violations Linked to Sal Greco and The Sal Greco Show

New York, NY — April 27, 2026 — The Sanders Firm, P.C., led by civil rights attorney Eric Sanders, has issued a formal legal demand to the New York City Police Department seeking the immediate dismissal with prejudice of all disciplinary charges brought against Detective 2nd Grade David Terrell. The demand further calls for the rescission of Detective Terrell’s thirty-day suspension without pay, the full restoration of all salary, overtime, benefits, accruals, seniority, and assignments, and the complete expungement of all references to the matter from Department records.

The demand letter, submitted to the NYPD Department Advocate, characterizes the case as “legally defective, factually unsupported, and structurally unreliable,” and asserts that the Department’s theory of misconduct collapses under even minimal scrutiny. At its core, the case does not present evidence of wrongdoing. Instead, it presents what Sanders describes as “an institutional response to a serious internal event that the Department chose to manage through concealment rather than compliance.”

A Sexual Assault Allegation Inside One Police Plaza

The underlying issue in this case is not abstract. It is a reported sexual assault inside One Police Plaza—the NYPD’s headquarters and one of the most secure and symbolically important law enforcement facilities in the country.

According to the Department’s own documentation, Salvatore “Sal” Greco publicly referenced an alleged sex crime inside One Police Plaza. In the period that followed, Detective Terrell reviewed a complaint report and later acknowledged confirming whether such a report existed after being informed of the allegation. The Department alleges that this conduct constituted unauthorized database access and dissemination of confidential information.

The Sanders Firm rejects that framing outright.

“A reported sexual assault inside police headquarters is not gossip, and it is not a private matter,” said Sanders. “It is a workplace-safety event, a sexual-harassment concern, a potential criminal act, and a matter of public concern. The Department’s attempt to treat verification of that event as misconduct is indefensible.”

No Proof of Disclosure, No Identified Statement, No Evidence

The demand letter makes clear that the Department has failed to establish the most basic element of its case: dissemination.

The Department has not identified any specific confidential statement that Detective Terrell allegedly disclosed. It has not produced any communication—no text message, email, recorded call, or witness statement—demonstrating that Detective Terrell provided non-public information to anyone. It has not established what, if anything, was disclosed, when it was disclosed, or how it was transmitted.

Instead, the case rests on timing, inference, and assumption.

“That is not evidence,” Sanders said. “That is speculation elevated to discipline.”

The absence of proof is compounded by a more serious failure: the Department did not interview Sal Greco, the alleged recipient of the supposed disclosure.

The Missing Witness and a Structurally Defective Investigation

The failure to interview Mr. Greco is not a minor procedural gap. It is a central structural defect.

“If the Department claims that Detective Terrell disclosed confidential information to Sal Greco, then Sal Greco is the critical witness,” Sanders said. “He is the alleged recipient. He is the individual who publicly discussed the incident. He is the only person outside the Department who could confirm or deny whether any disclosure occurred. The Department did not interview him.”

The demand letter argues that this omission renders the investigation unreliable as a matter of structure, not merely detail. A proper investigation would identify and interview all witnesses with direct knowledge of the alleged misconduct. Here, the Department avoided the one witness capable of disproving its theory.

The result, according to the letter, is an “evidentiary inversion,” where the Department formed a conclusion, narrowed its inquiry to support that conclusion, excluded contradictory evidence, and then treated the incomplete record as confirmation.

“That is not an investigation,” Sanders said. “That is a curated narrative.”

Association With Sal Greco and The Sal Greco Show

The demand letter also situates the case within a broader context: Detective Terrell’s perceived association with Sal Greco and The Sal Greco Show.

Mr. Greco and his platform have been consistent critics of NYPD leadership, Department management, alleged retaliation against officers, and broader issues of public corruption and institutional accountability. The Department’s own documentation identifies Mr. Greco as a “social media personality” known to the Department—a characterization that Sanders argues is revealing.

“That language tells you everything you need to know,” Sanders said. “This was not just about alleged access. It was about who Detective Terrell was perceived to be connected to.”

The letter asserts that the Department has transformed association into suspicion and suspicion into discipline, without proving the underlying misconduct.

“When the Department starts policing proximity to criticism, rather than actual conduct, it crosses a line,” Sanders said. “That is not enforcement. That is control.”

First Amendment Implications: Speech, Association, and Public Concern

The case raises serious First Amendment concerns. Public criticism of police misconduct, internal discipline, and public corruption is core protected speech on matters of public concern. The Supreme Court has consistently held that public employees do not lose their constitutional protections simply because their speech or associations are inconvenient to their employer.

The demand letter cites established precedent, including Pickering v. Board of Education, Connick v. Myers, Lane v. Franks, and Heffernan v. City of Paterson, to underscore that adverse action based on perceived association with protected speech can violate the First Amendment—even where the employer is mistaken.

“The Department has not identified any operational disruption, any interference with duty, or any actual harm,” Sanders said. “It has identified association. That is not enough. It is constitutionally insufficient.”

The letter further argues that disciplining an officer for alleged interaction with a public critic—particularly in the context of a reported sexual assault inside police headquarters—creates a chilling effect on speech, association, and internal accountability.

Workplace Safety and the Limits of “Confidentiality”

The Department’s reliance on confidentiality is another central issue.

Under federal and state workplace-safety frameworks, including OSHA principles applied through New York’s Public Employee Safety and Health (PESH) system, employers are required to maintain records of workplace injuries and incidents and, under defined conditions, provide access to those records.

The demand letter does not argue that every investigative detail must be disclosed. Instead, it draws a clear line: workplace-safety information cannot be treated as institutional contraband simply because it is sensitive or embarrassing.

“Confidentiality protects people,” Sanders said. “It protects victims, witnesses, and legitimate investigative processes. It does not protect institutional concealment.”

Where a sexual assault or workplace-violence incident occurs inside police headquarters, the Department has obligations to evaluate risk, implement prevention measures, and ensure that employees are not operating in an environment where danger is hidden from them.

“You cannot bury a workplace-safety event and then punish the person who asks whether it happened,” Sanders said.

New York Labor Law and Human Rights Protections

The demand letter outlines how the Department’s actions conflict with multiple provisions of New York law.

Under Labor Law §§ 27-a and 27-b, public employers are required to maintain safe workplaces, evaluate risks of workplace violence, and implement prevention programs. A sexual assault inside headquarters falls squarely within that framework.

Under Labor Law § 201-g, employers must maintain sexual-harassment prevention policies and training. The letter argues that these obligations are undermined where actual incidents are concealed rather than addressed.

Under Labor Law § 740, employees are protected from retaliation when they raise concerns about conduct they reasonably believe violates the law or poses a danger to health and safety. Under Labor Law § 215, retaliation for exercising labor-law rights is prohibited.

The letter also addresses the New York State Human Rights Law, which was amended in 2019 to lower the threshold for actionable harassment. Under the revised standard, the question is whether conduct subjects employees to inferior terms or conditions of employment—not whether it is severe or pervasive under older federal standards.

“A sexual assault inside police headquarters is the type of conduct the amended law was designed to capture,” Sanders said. “And when the Department responds by disciplining an employee for verifying that conduct, it compounds the problem.”

Broad Protections Under the New York City Human Rights Law

The New York City Human Rights Law provides even broader protections. It prohibits retaliation in any form that would reasonably deter a person from engaging in protected activity.

The demand letter argues that a thirty-day unpaid suspension, combined with formal disciplinary charges and an Internal Affairs investigation, would deter any reasonable employee from raising or verifying concerns about sexual misconduct inside the Department.

“The message is clear,” Sanders said. “Do not ask. Do not verify. Do not associate. That is exactly what the law prohibits.”

Relief Sought and Preservation of Evidence

The Sanders Firm, P.C. is demanding dismissal of all charges with prejudice, rescission of Detective Terrell’s suspension, full restoration of pay and benefits, expungement of all related records, and written assurances against further retaliation.

The firm has also issued a formal preservation demand requiring the NYPD to retain all records related to both the disciplinary investigation and the underlying reported sexual assault. This includes access logs, complaint reports, communications, investigative materials, and internal correspondence involving the Internal Affairs Bureau, Department leadership, and related units.

The Bottom Line

“This case is not about a database,” Sanders concluded. “It is about whether the NYPD can suppress a serious workplace-safety event inside its own headquarters, avoid its legal obligations, and then discipline an employee because of perceived association with a public critic. The law does not permit that structure.”

“This is not misconduct. This is misdirection. And it needs to end now.”

Media Contact

###