FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Notice of Claim alleges Walmart/Brosnan and Town of Newburgh police turned an unproven self-checkout dispute into a petit-larceny arrest — while the officer’s body-worn camera allegedly failed to capture the critical interaction inside Walmart.

New York, N.Y. — June 29, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. announces that it has served a Notice of Claim on behalf of Elizabeth Mendoza, also known as Elizabeth Perez, a Latina woman and New York City Police Department member of service, arising from an April 20, 2026 Walmart/Brosnan detention at the Walmart located at 1201 NY-300 in Newburgh, New York, a Town of Newburgh Police Department arrest, and a later NYPD/Internal Affairs Bureau interview based on the same non-conviction petit-larceny accusation.

According to the Notice, Mrs. Mendoza had undergone major thyroid cancer surgery at NYU Langone Health Hospital on or about April 8, 2026. She was released with several medications, including OxyCodone. On April 20, 2026, still recovering, medicated, and not feeling well, she went to Walmart in Newburgh with a family member to buy household essentials.

Before going to Walmart, Mrs. Mendoza withdrew approximately $400.00 from her Chase Bank account. According to the Notice, she gave the cash to her family member so that the family member could pay for whatever was purchased. At Walmart, they used self-checkout because the store was crowded and cashier lines were long.

The Notice alleges that Mrs. Mendoza began scanning items and believed her family member was also scanning items from the opposite side of the cart. Mrs. Mendoza became distracted, felt unwell, and told her family member she would meet her at the car while the family member remained near self-checkout completing payment.

As Mrs. Mendoza exited, a Walmart greeter allegedly asked for the receipt. Mrs. Mendoza turned, pointed toward her family member, and explained that her family member had the receipt. According to the Notice, the greeter waved her through.

Moments later, outside the store, Walmart/Brosnan security allegedly stopped Mrs. Mendoza, blocked her path, demanded a receipt, and prevented her from continuing to the parking lot. The Notice alleges that, at that moment, Walmart/Brosnan had not identified any specific unscanned item, had not completed a receipt comparison, had not shown evidence of intentional theft, and had not observed a misdemeanor committed or attempted in the presence of security personnel.

“Private security does not get to seize someone first and search for legal justification later,” Sanders said. “Walmart and Brosnan allegedly stopped her first, moved her into a security-room process, and tried to build the accusation after the seizure.”

According to the Notice, Mrs. Mendoza immediately explained that the receipt was inside with her family member, returned inside, cooperated, and produced the receipt through her family member. At that point, Walmart/Brosnan had not identified any specific unscanned item to her. Instead of allowing the matter to be resolved at the checkout area, Walmart/Brosnan allegedly directed Mrs. Mendoza and her family member into a security room.

Inside the security room, Mrs. Mendoza and her family member allegedly found themselves in a confined setting with multiple Walmart/Brosnan security personnel present, including a male security employee in a police-style vest blocking the doorway. Mrs. Mendoza allegedly asked to speak with a supervisor, but that request was ignored. Only then, after the stop had already occurred and after her request for supervisory intervention had gone unanswered, did Walmart/Brosnan allegedly begin the receipt-to-cart comparison. Mrs. Mendoza and her family member repeatedly offered to pay for any item Walmart/Brosnan claimed had not been scanned, but they were not shown an itemized list, not given a clear explanation, not provided access to a supervisor, and not permitted to resolve the matter by paying.

The Notice also challenges Walmart/Brosnan’s treatment of a self-checkout event as intentional theft. It alleges that Walmart and Brosnan knew or should have known that self-checkout systems, scan logs, missed-scan detection, receipt audits, video interpretation, and loss-prevention technology do not reliably distinguish intentional theft from non-malicious customer error. A missed scan, scanner delay, barcode failure, system prompt, later scan discrepancy, or technology alert is not the same thing as larcenous intent.

Police Officer Matthew Mahoney, Shield No. TN037, allegedly arrived at approximately 12:40 p.m. According to the Notice, Mrs. Mendoza identified herself as NYPD, and Officer Mahoney stated that he was formerly NYPD and had worked in the 34th Precinct. Mrs. Mendoza allegedly asked Officer Mahoney whether he could speak with Walmart/Brosnan security. Officer Mahoney allegedly responded, in substance, that “when Walmart makes up their mind, there is nothing that he can do.”

The body-worn camera issue makes what happened next even more troubling. According to the Notice, Officer Mahoney’s body-worn camera was not activated during the critical portion of the police response: his approach from the police vehicle into Walmart, his entry into the security office, his interaction with Walmart/Brosnan security, his interaction with Mrs. Mendoza and her family member, and the conversation in which he allegedly deferred to Walmart’s decision. Instead, the camera allegedly was activated only after Mrs. Mendoza and her family member were already outside near the police vehicle.

“If the camera had been activated when it should have been, we would not be guessing about what was said, what was shown, and what was not shown,” Sanders said. “The most important part of the investigation allegedly happened off camera. That is unacceptable.”

The Notice alleges that Officer Mahoney then adopted Walmart/Brosnan’s accusation without adequately verifying the legal or factual basis for the arrests. He allegedly did not require Walmart/Brosnan to identify the specific unscanned merchandise, did not confirm that Walmart/Brosnan had observed a misdemeanor committed or attempted in its presence, did not meaningfully determine whether the receipt had been reconciled against the cart before the stop, and did not independently assess whether the alleged self-checkout issue showed criminal intent rather than mistake, scanner error, medical distraction, or customer confusion.

Instead, according to the Notice, Officer Mahoney accepted Walmart/Brosnan’s accusation, arrested Mrs. Mendoza and her family member, handcuffed them in front, transported them to the Town of Newburgh Police Department, and issued Desk Appearance Tickets charging petit larceny.

The Notice further alleges that Town of Newburgh supervisors failed to verify Officer Mahoney’s arrests before Mrs. Mendoza and her family member were transported, processed, and issued Desk Appearance Tickets. No patrol supervisor allegedly responded to the Walmart security office, reviewed the body-worn camera issue, required Officer Mahoney to identify the specific items allegedly stolen, confirmed whether Walmart/Brosnan had observed a misdemeanor committed or attempted in its presence, reviewed whether the receipt had been reconciled against the cart before the stop, or ensured that General Business Law § 218 and CPL § 140.30(1) were satisfied.

According to the Notice, that supervisory failure allowed an unverified private-security accusation to become a police arrest, criminal charge, court appearance, and later NYPD Internal Affairs matter.

Mrs. Mendoza later appeared in Town of Newburgh Court with private criminal defense counsel. The Notice alleges that she observed that the judge, prosecutor, court typist, court officers, and overall court staff appeared to be White, while approximately 95% of the people waiting to be seen by the judge appeared to be people of color, including Black and Hispanic individuals. Upon information and belief, many appeared to be present for Walmart-related arrest matters.

The Notice alleges that this courtroom observation is not offered as standalone proof of discrimination, but as a material fact requiring investigation into whether Walmart-related arrests in the Town of Newburgh disproportionately involve Black and Hispanic customers and pressure minority defendants into quick dispositions rather than challenges to the legal premise of the arrest.

Mrs. Mendoza and her family member received an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal and were required to complete a $75.00 shoplifting course. The Notice emphasizes that an ACD is not a conviction, not a guilty plea, and not an admission of guilt. Mrs. Mendoza maintains that accepting the ACD was a practical effort to end a low-level criminal matter quickly and reduce employment harm. It was not an admission of theft.

On or about June 11, 2026, Mrs. Mendoza appeared at NYPD/Internal Affairs Bureau in connection with an IAB investigation arising from a Walmart/Brosnan self-checkout accusation that later became a Town of Newburgh arrest and non-conviction criminal matter. According to the Notice, the IAB interview improperly placed arrest-based, non-conviction, sealed, sealable, nullified, or derivative criminal-case material back into issue as employment evidence.

During the interview, Sergeant Smith allegedly stated that there were “13 items” and that Walmart had video showing Mrs. Mendoza as the only person scanning. According to the Notice, those statements were not neutral background questions. They allegedly converted an unresolved Walmart/Brosnan accusation and Town of Newburgh criminal-case theory into an NYPD employment issue, even though the criminal matter did not result in a conviction, guilty plea, or admission of theft.

The alleged “13 items” figure illustrates the problem. According to the Notice, Mrs. Mendoza still has not been given a reliable itemized list identifying the specific merchandise Walmart/Brosnan claims she intentionally stole. She has not been shown a complete receipt comparison, scan log, transaction journal, synchronized video-and-scan record, itemized audit sheet, Walmart/Brosnan incident report, supporting deposition, police paperwork, or any other reliable document establishing what the allegedly unscanned items were, who identified them, when they were identified, how the item count was calculated, or whether the number was generated before or after she had already been stopped, detained, accused, and referred for arrest.

“To this day, she does not know what Walmart claims she stole,” Sanders said. “Yet that unexplained ‘13 items’ number was allegedly imported into an Internal Affairs interview as if it were established fact. That is exactly the preclusion problem. NYPD cannot take a private retail accusation, a non-conviction criminal matter, and untested derivative material, then use it as employment evidence against her.”

The Notice alleges that the Department may investigate actual misconduct using lawful, independent, non-precluded evidence. But it may not launder a private-security accusation and a non-conviction criminal matter into employment proof by repeating the same untested allegations inside an IAB interview.

The Notice demands preservation of Walmart/Brosnan surveillance video, self-checkout data, scan logs, transaction records, missed-scan detection records, video-analytics records, false-positive reports, body-worn camera footage, CAD records, police reports, IAB records, sealed-record access logs, and all materials concerning the disputed “13 items” accusation.

The Notice of Claim is a statutory prerequisite to suit against municipal entities. The allegations remain claims and have not yet been adjudicated 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