FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A new human-rights lawsuit alleges the City used retired credentials as a backdoor punishment after allowing Black retired officer Dynel J. Powell to vest and retire without any new proven misconduct.

NEW YORK, N.Y. — July 5, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., has filed a state-court human-rights lawsuit in New York County Supreme Court on behalf of retired NYPD Police Officer Dynel J. Powell against the City of New York and former NYPD Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell. The lawsuit alleges that the City and Sewell violated the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law by denying Powell a full unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card and Good-Guy Letter after allowing him to vest and retire without any new adjudicated misconduct.

Powell, who is Black, served the NYPD for approximately seventeen and one-half years. He was appointed to the Department on or about January 31, 2006. Before the disciplinary matter at issue in the lawsuit, Powell had no formal disciplinary history, received overall annual performance ratings of “Exceeds Expectations” for 2018, 2019, and 2020, and was awarded seven medals for Excellent Police Duty.

The lawsuit alleges that Powell’s disciplinary history was already known, already adjudicated, and already punished. In NYPD disciplinary Case No. 2020-22821, Powell was charged in connection with an off-duty motor-vehicle incident and a later Department interview. Following trial, Assistant Deputy Commissioner — Trials Paul M. Gamble recommended that Powell forfeit thirty-five vacation days and be placed on one-year dismissal probation.

On or about May 13, 2022, then-Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell exercised her final disciplinary authority and approved that recommendation.

But Sewell did not terminate Powell.

According to the complaint, that decision matters. Administrative Code § 14-115 gives the Police Commissioner broad disciplinary authority over NYPD members of service. The Police Commissioner may impose discipline, including reprimand, forfeiture of pay, suspension without pay, dismissal, and dismissal held in abeyance during a probationary period. Sewell had the statutory authority to impose or approve discipline. She chose a defined penalty short of immediate termination: thirty-five vacation days and one-year dismissal probation.

After that, the NYPD allowed Powell to remain employed. Upon information and belief, he remained full duty during the relevant post-penalty period.

On or about March 10, 2023, a CCRB complaint was generated concerning an alleged use of physical force during a parade or special-event encounter in a subway station or train. The CCRB matter involved no arrest and no summons. Body-worn camera evidence and video evidence were collected. Shortly afterward, the NYPD modified Powell and ordered him to appear for a Department interview.

On advice of PBA counsel, Powell filed for vested-interest retirement. The complaint alleges that he did so to protect his vested pension rights and to avoid defendants using the pending CCRB complaint, modified-duty status, and Department interview order as a vehicle to terminate him before his retirement could become effective.

Powell was a Tier IIA member. With approximately seventeen and one-half years of service, he required Police Commissioner permission to vest. On or about June 8, 2023, Powell appeared at the New York City Police Pension Section in connection with his vested-interest retirement. By then, the complaint alleges, the City, the NYPD, and Sewell knew or should have known about the March 10, 2023 CCRB complaint, Powell’s modified-duty status, the Department interview order, and his vested-interest retirement request.

Yet defendants did not terminate him. They did not deny him permission to proceed with vested-interest retirement. Powell officially retired from the NYPD on or about July 7, 2023.

As of Powell’s retirement date, defendants had not obtained any new adjudicated finding of misconduct against him. The March 10, 2023 CCRB matter had not resulted in a substantiated finding. It had not resulted in a disciplinary trial finding. It had not resulted in a new NYPD adjudication of misconduct. The CCRB matter later closed on or about October 2, 2023 as “Miscellaneous — Subject Resigned.”

After allowing Powell to vest and retire, the lawsuit alleges, defendants refused to issue him a full unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card and Good-Guy Letter.

The complaint alleges that this refusal was not based on any post-May 13, 2022 adjudicated misconduct and was not based on any new proven disciplinary violation. Instead, Powell alleges defendants relied, in whole or in part, on stale, previously punished, unresolved, unsubstantiated, or unadjudicated allegations to deny him full retired credentials.

“This case is about a second punishment,” said Eric Sanders, Esq., founder of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “The NYPD had already made its disciplinary decision. Commissioner Sewell approved a defined penalty. The Department did not terminate Officer Powell. It allowed him to remain employed, allowed him to appear at the Pension Section, allowed him to vest, and allowed him to retire. Then, after the fact, the City denied him the credentials that make retired police status meaningful.”

The lawsuit alleges that a full unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card and Good-Guy Letter are not ceremonial documents. They carry practical, reputational, licensing, firearm-related, occupational, and retirement-status consequences for former law-enforcement officers. Denial of those credentials can impair a retired officer’s ability to obtain or maintain firearm-related retired law-enforcement status, pursue security or law-enforcement-related employment, preserve professional standing, and access the ordinary incidents of retired police status.

The complaint relies on the principle reflected in Perros v. County of Nassau, a federal case involving post-separation law-enforcement credentials. Although Perros involved a different law-enforcement agency, the complaint alleges the operative principle applies here: when a public law-enforcement employer controls credentials that materially affect retirement status, firearm licensing, employment opportunities, reputation, and practical retired benefits, those credentials cannot be treated as meaningless paperwork or insulated administrative favors.

“The agency does not change the premise,” Sanders said. “Whether the employer is Nassau County or the NYPD, the Good-Guy Letter is not meaningless paperwork. It affects retired status, firearm licensing, security employment, reputation, and practical retirement consequences. A public employer cannot dress up a post-separation penalty as an administrative credential decision and then apply it differently to a Black retired officer.”

The lawsuit raises a broader Human Rights Law issue beyond Powell’s individual case: whether a public employer may use post-separation credentials as a backdoor penalty when the decision is tied to a protected category or protected opposition. Powell alleges race discrimination and retaliation. But the principle is not limited to race. Depending on the facts, the same framework may apply to disability, gender, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, domestic-violence-victim status, arrest or conviction history where protected, political association where legally protected, union or association activity where protected by law, or another protected classification recognized under New York State or New York City law.

“This case is about more than one retired identification card,” Sanders said. “When the government controls credentials that affect livelihood, reputation, firearm licensing, employment opportunities, and retired status, it cannot use that authority selectively or discriminatorily. In Officer Powell’s case, the protected category is race, and the protected activity is his resistance to what he reasonably believed was racially disparate disciplinary enforcement. The Human Rights Laws do not allow a public employer to accomplish indirectly through credential control what it could not lawfully do directly.”

The complaint alleges that Powell reasonably believed defendants were positioning him, as a Black NYPD member, for unequal treatment based on stale, previously punished, unresolved, unsubstantiated, or unadjudicated allegations. On advice of PBA counsel, Powell filed for vested-interest retirement to protect his pension rights and avoid termination before his retirement could become effective. The lawsuit alleges defendants knew or perceived Powell’s vested-interest retirement filing and refusal to submit to a Department interview under those conditions as opposition to racially disparate disciplinary enforcement.

After Powell retired, defendants allegedly denied, maintained, ratified, and refused to correct the denial of his full unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card and Good-Guy Letter. The lawsuit alleges that denial imposed an inferior retired status, deprived Powell of ordinary post-employment retirement privileges, and retaliated against him for opposing race-based unequal treatment.

The case is not an Article 78 challenge seeking ordinary administrative review of an internal NYPD credential decision. It is a plenary state-court Human Rights Law action seeking to test whether the City applied post-separation credential consequences differently to a Black retired officer than to similarly situated non-Black members.

The complaint further alleges that the City controls the comparator information necessary to answer that question. Publicly available NYPD disciplinary data does not disclose the complete case-level universe of retirement, separation, retired-identification, and Good-Guy Letter outcomes. According to the lawsuit, the relevant records include disciplinary histories, CCRB histories, negotiated resolutions, dismissal-probation outcomes, retirement and separation records, retired-identification determinations, Good-Guy Letter determinations, and final Police Commissioner decisions.

“The NYPD controls the comparison data,” Sanders said. “The public cannot fully evaluate who gets protected, who gets punished, who receives retired credentials, and who is stripped of full retired status because the Department does not publicly disclose the complete credential-outcome universe. Discovery will determine whether similarly situated non-Black members received more favorable treatment despite comparable or more serious disciplinary histories, pending complaints, unresolved investigations, Department interview exposure, unadjudicated allegations, or separation under investigation.”

Powell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, issuance of a full unrestricted retired NYPD police identification card and Good-Guy Letter, compensatory damages, emotional-distress damages, economic damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and all other relief permitted under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

The Sanders Firm, P.C. will pursue discovery into the NYPD’s post-separation credential practices, including how the Department decides who receives unrestricted retired identification cards and Good-Guy Letters, who is denied them, what allegations are used, whether those allegations were adjudicated, and whether similarly situated non-Black members received more favorable treatment under comparable or worse circumstances.

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