FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYPD allegedly passed the arrest up the chain instead of voiding it, denied DAT treatment, and watched the OGA charge fall at arraignment.

New York, New York — June 16, 2026 — Plaintiff JONATHAN VARELA, a Hispanic New York City Police Department police officer, has filed a human-rights action in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, against THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Police Commissioner JESSICA S. TISCH, Deputy Chief ANTHONY S. GAZIS, Deputy Inspector JUAN O. MORAN, Captain DWAYNE A. WATSON, Lieutenant STEVEN J. LANE, Sergeant MICHAEL M. HANNA, Sergeant MICHAEL HINES, Police Officer YEHUDA GOLDBERG, and Police Officer BRIAN A. ULLOA.

The lawsuit arises from a June 8, 2026 off-duty encounter in the NYPD’s 40th Precinct.

The 40th Precinct is the southernmost precinct in the Bronx and covers Port Morris, Mott Haven, and Melrose. According to the complaint, the precinct is not merely the location of the incident. It is part of the context.

The complaint alleges that the area surrounding the encounter is a heavily policed Bronx community with substantial Hispanic and Black populations and significant socioeconomic vulnerability. The complaint uses ZIP Code 10454 as a demographic and socioeconomic reference point for the area surrounding the incident, alleging that the area is approximately 71% Hispanic and approximately 22% Black, with a reported poverty rate of approximately 45.2% and a reported median household income of approximately $24,086.

The complaint further alleges that public NYPD data reflects an enforcement-heavy environment inside the 40th Precinct. According to the complaint’s review of NYPD vehicle-stop data, the 40th Precinct recorded 3,919 vehicle stops in the first quarter of 2026, including 2,855 summonses, 282 vehicle-related arrests, 78 vehicle searches, 74 seizures, and 3 reported force incidents. The complaint also alleges that NYPD vehicle-stop data for the fourth quarter of 2025 reflected 3,382 vehicle stops in the 40th Precinct, including 2,532 summonses, 197 vehicle-related arrests, 111 vehicle searches, 68 seizures, and 3 reported force incidents.

The complaint alleges that the stop-question-and-frisk data is even more troubling. According to the complaint’s review of NYPD stop-question-and-frisk data for 2025, the 40th Precinct recorded 1,066 stops. Of those stops, 608 involved persons identified as Black, 272 involved persons identified as White Hispanic, and 131 involved persons identified as Black Hispanic. Together, those three categories accounted for 1,011 of the 1,066 reported stops.

According to the complaint, that same 2025 stop-question-and-frisk data reflected 686 self-initiated stops, 770 frisks, 390 searches, 192 arrests, 60 summonses, and 92 reported handcuffing incidents in the 40th Precinct. The complaint also alleges that NYPD Level 2 encounter data for 2025 reflected 1,520 Level 2 encounters in the 40th Precinct, including 1,436 self-initiated encounters, 87 arrests, 27 summons-related enforcement actions, and 3 reported force incidents.

That is the enforcement environment in which Varela alleges he was treated not as an off-duty NYPD police officer returning home, but as a presumptively suspicious Hispanic man in his own Bronx neighborhood.

According to the complaint, Varela was not passing through the 40th Precinct. He lived there. He and his mother resided in the Bronx community where the encounter occurred.

On June 8, 2026, at approximately 1:00 a.m., according to the complaint, Varela arrived home, parked his vehicle, and proceeded toward his residence. He was off duty, in civilian clothing, and returning to the building where he and his mother lived.

The complaint alleges that Varela was not pulled over while operating his vehicle, was not ordered to stop before parking, and was not told while driving that any officer was initiating a vehicle stop.

The NYPD’s internal arrest narrative allegedly told a different story.

According to the complaint, the Department narrative claimed that Police Officer GOLDBERG and Police Officer ULLOA observed a black Mercedes-Benz disobey a steady red light at East 141st Street and Willis Avenue, make an improper U-turn midblock, and then stop near East 141st Street. The Department narrative further claimed that the officers waited for the occupants to exit the vehicle before approaching.

According to the complaint, however, Varela had already parked and entered or approached the lobby area of his residential building before officers confronted him and claimed the encounter was related to a vehicle stop.

When Police Officer GOLDBERG demanded identification, Varela asked why he was being stopped.

The complaint alleges that Varela did not immediately identify himself as an NYPD officer because the encounter occurred in a public area of the building where he and his mother lived. He had legitimate safety concerns about publicly exposing his member-of-service status in that location.

Varela alleges that he did not use force, did not physically interfere with any officer, did not flee, did not provide false identification, did not destroy evidence, did not threaten anyone, and did not obstruct an official police function.

Nevertheless, according to the complaint, Varela was handcuffed at approximately 1:10 a.m.

Once handcuffed, Varela immediately identified himself as a member of the service. The complaint alleges that Police Officer Naomi Mercedes, another off-duty Hispanic NYPD officer who was present, also provided Varela’s NYPD identification.

According to the complaint, that should have triggered review, correction, and release. Plaintiff’s identity had been confirmed. His NYPD employment status had been confirmed. The alleged Obstructing Governmental Administration predicate was legally defective.

Instead, according to the complaint, Police Officer GOLDBERG stated, in substance, that it was “too late.”

Varela was transported to the 40th Precinct. The complaint alleges that Sergeant HINES arrived at the scene before transport, was told that Varela was a member of the service, and had the first supervisory opportunity to stop, correct, or void the arrest. The complaint alleges that he did not do so.

At the 40th Precinct, according to the complaint, the Desk Officer had another opportunity to review the arrest, determine whether the facts supported Obstructing Governmental Administration, and void the arrest. The complaint alleges that the Desk Officer did not do so.

The complaint alleges that Captain WATSON, the Patrol Borough Bronx South Duty Captain, later responded and spoke with Varela. According to the complaint, WATSON had command-level authority and enough information to determine that the arrest should have been voided. The complaint alleges that the arrest was not voided.

The complaint further alleges that Deputy Inspector MORAN and Deputy Chief GAZIS had command-level obligations to ensure that Varela was not held, processed, investigated, or disciplined based on a legally defective arrest. The complaint alleges that they did not prevent the Department from using the arrest as the basis for immediate employment punishment.

According to the complaint, Lieutenant LANE and Sergeant HANNA of Internal Affairs Bureau Group 9 arrived and conducted a GO-15 interview while Varela was under arrest, in custody, and exposed to immediate Department consequences. The complaint alleges that the IAB process failed to correct the defective arrest narrative and failed to protect Varela’s employment rights.

Before any judge reviewed the arrest, before any neutral adjudication, and before any finding that Varela had obstructed governmental administration, the Department suspended him without pay, placed him on modified duty, and directed him to surrender his firearms, shield, and Department identification.

The sequence is central to the lawsuit: arrest first, suspension second, dismissal third.

At approximately 5:00 a.m., according to the complaint, Varela was fingerprinted and photographed. He was told he would not receive a Desk Appearance Ticket and would instead be transported to Bronx Central Booking. The complaint alleges that Varela remained in custody for approximately fifteen hours before the Obstructing Governmental Administration charge was dismissed at arraignment.

“This is not a case about a lawful stop that became inconvenient,” said attorney Eric Sanders of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “The complaint alleges there was no vehicle stop communicated to Mr. Varela while he was operating his vehicle, no lawful obstruction, and no basis to convert his question into an arrest. The Department then punished him to cover up the violation of his legal rights.”

The complaint alleges that NYPD’s internal checks and balances did not function as safeguards. They functioned as a relay system: the arrest was not voided at the scene, not voided at the precinct, not voided by command review, not corrected after Internal Affairs became involved, and not resolved through Desk Appearance Ticket treatment.

Instead, according to the complaint, each checkpoint passed the defective arrest forward until Varela reached arraignment, where the OGA charge collapsed.

The complaint alleges that this was discriminatory policing followed by discriminatory employment punishment.

Police Commissioner TISCH is named because, according to the complaint, she possessed ultimate statutory disciplinary authority over NYPD members of the service and was responsible for ensuring that NYPD disciplinary power was not used to ratify a false arrest, perpetuate a biased investigation, or impose discriminatory employment consequences without a lawful factual predicate.

“The allegation is simple,” Sanders said. “The Department protected the arrest instead of protecting the law. Mr. Varela asked why he was being stopped. The answer became handcuffs, Central Booking, suspension without pay, modified duty, and the loss of his shield — until a judge dismissed the OGA charge.”

Varela brings claims under the New York Civil Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York City Administrative Code § 14-151. The complaint alleges discrimination, retaliation, bias-based profiling, discriminatory discipline, hostile work environment, employer liability, and aiding-and-abetting liability.

Varela seeks compensatory damages, lost compensation, emotional-distress damages, reputational damages, statutory remedies, punitive damages where permitted, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and equitable relief, including correction, rescission, expungement, or removal of discriminatory, retaliatory, biased, false, misleading, or legally defective NYPD arrest, disciplinary, Internal Affairs Bureau, personnel, employment, command, or related records.

The defendants have not yet answered the complaint. The allegations remain allegations unless and until proven in court.

About The Sanders Firm, P.C.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. is a New York-based law firm focused on civil rights, immigration, employment discrimination, police misconduct, and other high-stakes matters. Its founder and president, Eric Sanders, Esq., is a retired NYPD officer who brings a rare inside perspective to the intersection of government power, public institutions, enforcement discretion, and constitutional accountability.

For more than twenty years, Sanders has counseled thousands of clients and handled complex matters involving police use of force, sexual harassment, retaliation, systemic discrimination, immigration consequences, and related civil-rights violations. He is widely recognized as a leading New York civil-rights attorney and a prominent voice on evidence-based policing, institutional accountability, equal justice, and rights-based immigration advocacy.

Media Contact