Bronx, New York — March 9, 2026 — A newly filed lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, accuses the City of New York, former Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell, former First Deputy Commissioner Edward A. Caban, and former Deputy Commissioner, Department Advocate’s Office Amy J. Litwin of using an unlawful, arbitrary, and discriminatory disciplinary process against former NYPD Officer Josue G. Torres. The complaint alleges that Torres, a male officer of color and a victim of domestic violence, was subjected to adverse disciplinary action through a system shaped by confirmation bias, unequal treatment, misuse of sealed arrest information, and a lack of meaningful transparency in NYPD disciplinary decision-making.

The lawsuit was filed on March 9, 2026, in Bronx County Supreme Court. It asserts claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for arrest-record discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based on status as a victim of domestic violence, and retaliation. The complaint further alleges that the defendants acted in violation of, and in derogation of, the protections codified in Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and 160.60 by inquiring into, relying upon, disclosing, or taking adverse action based on matters that had terminated in Torres’s favor and were sealed under New York law.

According to the complaint, this case is not simply about one officer’s disciplinary outcome. It is about whether the NYPD’s internal disciplinary machinery has continued to operate behind a public façade of “fairness,” “equity,” and “transparency” while withholding the kind of comparator-level disclosure and legal compliance necessary to test whether similarly situated officers are treated consistently. The complaint alleges that the Department’s own reports from 2016 through 2023, as well as the findings of a 2019 Independent Panel, show a recurring pattern: the NYPD repeatedly announced its commitment to a “fair, effective, timely, and transparent disciplinary process,” yet simultaneously maintained a reporting structure that did not permit meaningful lateral comparison across materially similar cases.

The lawsuit traces a larger institutional problem. It alleges that the Department itself acknowledged in its 2022 and 2023 discipline reports that its formal discipline data are stored in a case-management database intended to manage cases rather than catalog and manipulate data, and that meaningful “lateral comparisons” are difficult. The complaint alleges that this matters because comparator analysis is central to determining whether discipline is being imposed consistently or selectively. In the complaint’s telling, the NYPD has chosen a public-facing reporting model that invokes transparency but still leaves officers, counsel, and the public unable to meaningfully test whether similarly situated members are treated alike.

The complaint also places heavy emphasis on the unlawful use of sealed records. It alleges that the City and the NYPD were on notice, as early as April 29, 2019, that the Department could not use sealed arrest information for internal investigatory purposes absent lawful authorization. It further alleges that on September 27, 2021, the Supreme Court, New York County, again ruled against the City and the NYPD, granted preliminary injunctive relief, found the Department’s prior training on sealed records “contrary to law,” and required corrective guidance and a compliance plan. Despite those rulings, the complaint alleges that the Department under Sewell, Caban, and Litwin continued to maintain, implement, enforce, ratify, and permit disciplinary practices in which sealed arrest information was used in charging decisions, prosecutorial decisions, adjudicative decisions, penalty determinations, and related adverse employment action.

The lawsuit goes further, alleging that the Department’s own disciplinary materials acknowledge that criminal allegations and internal disciplinary charges may proceed in tandem, creating a system in which arrest-related information can infect internal disciplinary decision-making even when the criminal matter later terminates favorably. The complaint asserts that this structure allowed sealed arrest information to shape the fairness of Torres’s disciplinary process in direct conflict with New York law.

The case also presents a gender-based domestic violence theory. Torres alleges that the defendants failed to apply the protections and purposes embodied in New York City Administrative Code § 8-107.1 during his disciplinary proceedings. According to the complaint, the Department’s April 24, 2023 draft report and recommendation evaluated the matter solely through a punitive domestic-violence framework, recommended termination, and invoked domestic-violence penalty guidelines and aggravating factors without assessing whether Torres’s domestic-violence-related circumstances triggered workplace protections recognized by New York City law. The complaint alleges that this one-sided treatment reflected arbitrary and unequal standards shaped by gender-based assumptions about who may be recognized as a victim of domestic violence and whose circumstances merit protection rather than discipline.

The complaint also points to the role of Assistant Deputy Commissioner–Trials Paul M. Gamble, alleging that he recommended a finding of guilty and dismissal while crediting the alleged complainant despite a history of material misrepresentations and false accusations. It further alleges that Gamble disregarded exculpatory legal principles, including the primary physical aggressor framework and the defenses of justification under the Penal Law. The pleading frames this not as a simple disagreement over fact-finding, but as part of a broader disciplinary process allegedly infected by confirmation bias and selective standards.

The lawsuit includes allegations regarding then-First Deputy Commissioner Edward A. Caban that are especially striking. Torres alleges that while his disciplinary charges were pending, his mother, retired Police Officer Lisette Torres, communicated with Caban regarding the matter. The complaint states that Caban and Ms. Torres had a prior professional relationship dating back to the 48th Precinct and that, in or about May 2022, Ms. Torres met with Caban at One Police Plaza while he was serving as First Deputy Police Commissioner under Sewell. According to the complaint, Caban assured Ms. Torres that he would “take care of” Torres, and as she left his office told her, in substance, “Don’t worry about your son. I’m going to take care of your son. Don’t forget you owe me dinner. Next time come by yourself.” The complaint further alleges that after Ms. Torres did not go to dinner with Caban, he largely ceased communicating with her and failed to intervene, which Torres characterizes as retaliatory and arbitrary conduct that contributed to his final order of dismissal.

On June 23, 2023, according to the complaint, Sewell adopted Gamble’s recommendation and entered a final order of dismissal pursuant to Administrative Code § 14-115. Torres alleges that the recommendation and the final order were tainted by confirmation bias, the unlawful use of sealed arrest information, and a disciplinary process that was neither neutral nor transparent.

The lawsuit also asserts that the harm did not end when Torres lost his NYPD position. In a post-termination allegation, the complaint states that on or about June 29, 2023, Torres appeared in connection with a disqualifying employment entry describing him as removed for cause in connection with prospective employment at the New York City Department of Correction, and that there was no hearing in that subsequent process. Torres alleges that this constituted continuing post-termination retaliation and extended the practical effect of the NYPD’s actions into his efforts to obtain later public employment.

The complaint’s comparator theory is also central. Torres alleges that the Department maintains access to an extensive internal body of disciplinary matters, negotiated resolutions, penalty recommendations, trial decisions, deviation determinations, and settlements—a comparative library that the Department can use to position current cases against prior outcomes. Yet, according to the complaint, officers and their counsel do not enjoy equal and meaningful access to that same universe of disciplinary information. The lawsuit contends that this asymmetry matters because it impairs the ability of disciplined officers to determine whether they were treated consistently or instead subjected to selective discipline, retaliation, or unequal treatment.

In the causes of action, Torres first alleges that the defendants violated the New York State Human Rights Law by engaging in arrest-history discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296(16), gender discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296(1), and retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296(7). He further alleges that the defendants violated the New York City Human Rights Law by engaging in arrest-history discrimination in violation of Administrative Code § 8-107, gender discrimination and discrimination based on status as a victim of domestic violence in violation of Administrative Code §§ 8-107 and 8-107.1, and retaliation in violation of Administrative Code § 8-107(7). The complaint alleges that these violations were carried out through the use and disclosure of sealed arrest information, the refusal to apply workplace protections afforded to victims of domestic violence, the use of a punitive and gender-skewed disciplinary framework, and the continuation of adverse and post-termination employment consequences. Through this action, Torres seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages where available, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable relief the Court deems just and proper.

“This lawsuit asks a basic but urgent question,” said attorney Eric Sanders of The Sanders Firm, P.C., counsel for Torres. “Can the NYPD publicly proclaim fairness, equity, and transparency while continuing to use sealed records, deny meaningful comparator access, and apply domestic-violence protections through a distorted, gendered lens? Our position is no. The law does not permit disciplinary opacity to become a substitute for accountability.”

The complaint now places those questions squarely before the Bronx Supreme Court.

Media Contact
Eric Sanders, Esq.
The Sanders Firm, P.C.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10005
(212) 652-2782