FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New complaint says Internal Affairs was used to target Sergeant Osmairys Avila and retired Lieutenant Special Assignment Ray Sanchez after Avila sued the City, Commissioner Tisch, and Deputy Inspector Moran

New York, N.Y. — August 15, 2026 — Five weeks after NYPD Sergeant Osmairys A. Avila joined Police Officers Pamela Sosa and Brittany N. Romero in filing a sexual-harassment, discrimination, and retaliation lawsuit arising from the NYPD’s troubled 46th Precinct, The Sanders Firm, P.C. has filed a new civil-rights action alleging that Department officials responded by turning the NYPD’s investigative, disciplinary, and retirement machinery against Avila and her romantic partner, retired NYPD Lieutenant Special Assignment Ray Sanchez.

The new lawsuit, filed in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, names the City of New York, Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch, Edward A. Thompson, Joseph A. Dibartolomeo, Deputy Inspector Juan O. Moran, Janice Falette, and Francisco Orellana. It asserts retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law and alleges that the defendants used Department processes to punish protected activity, deter its continuation, and impose consequences on Sanchez because of his relationship with Avila.

The action follows Avila, et al. v. City of New York, et al., Index No. 813435/2026E, filed on July 9, 2026. That case alleges that Moran, while serving as commanding officer of the 46th Precinct, sexually harassed, pressured, humiliated, touched, and retaliated against subordinate Latina female members of service and that the City and Commissioner Tisch failed to adequately protect those employees despite already having notice of serious sexual-misconduct and retaliation allegations associated with the same precinct.

The new lawsuit focuses on what allegedly happened after Avila exercised protected civil-rights activity and commenced the July 9 action. According to the Verified Complaint, Department officials did not insulate Avila from further retaliatory conduct or ensure that subsequent Internal Affairs activity was handled with heightened neutrality. Instead, plaintiffs allege that defendants resurrected historical allegations concerning the relationship between Avila and Sanchez and used those allegations as the foundation for a coordinated Internal Affairs operation shortly before Sanchez’s retirement.

According to the complaint, Moran knew by approximately January 2026 that Avila and Sanchez were involved in a consensual romantic relationship. The lawsuit further alleges that Moran had developed his own personal and sexual interest in Avila and thereafter treated Sanchez as an obstacle. Plaintiffs allege that Moran repeatedly refused to approve authorized overtime earned by Sanchez, attempted to force him from the 46th Precinct, removed his assigned office and parking privileges, monitored him through precinct surveillance equipment, photographed him, and referred allegations concerning him to Internal Affairs. Sanchez alleges that Moran’s interference with authorized overtime caused approximately $80,000 in lost compensation and reduced his pension because the lost overtime was pensionable.

That preexisting history is significant because the complaint alleges that, once Avila commenced the July 9 lawsuit, Department officials revived matters that were not newly discovered. Internal Affairs had already questioned Sanchez concerning his relationship with Avila in approximately September 2025, and the complaint alleges that Avila did not work directly under Sanchez and that Sanchez did not exercise direct supervisory authority over her.

The Department also revisited allegations concerning Sanchez’s use of manual attendance entries rather than electronic scanning. The complaint does not allege that Sanchez failed to report for duty, received compensation for time he did not work, or recorded fictitious tours. Rather, the issue concerned the method by which his attendance was recorded. Plaintiffs allege that these historical matters were revived after Avila sued and supplied a pretext for placing both Avila and Sanchez back under Internal Affairs scrutiny.

The July 29, 2026 interview process is a central part of the new action. According to the complaint, Avila was directed to appear at 12:00 noon at 233 Broadway while Sanchez was directed to appear at exactly the same time at 315 Hudson Street. Plaintiffs allege that approximately twenty questions had been prepared for use during the interviews and that the investigators intended to question Avila and Sanchez separately concerning overlapping matters while communicating with each other during the process.

The complaint further alleges that the investigators intended to coordinate through WhatsApp, exchange information concerning the questions posed and answers given, compare Avila’s and Sanchez’s responses in real time, identify perceived differences in wording, chronology, recollection, or detail, and use those differences to formulate additional questioning and possible disciplinary allegations. Plaintiffs allege that WhatsApp was selected to conceal the real-time coordination and avoid the ordinary Department communication trail that would reveal how the supposedly separate interviews were being synchronized.

That alleged structure carried particular significance because Sanchez was then only thirteen days away from retirement after more than twenty years of NYPD service. According to the complaint, the intended objective was to identify a perceived discrepancy that could be characterized as dishonesty, lack of candor, a false statement, or other misconduct and then use it as a basis to suspend Sanchez before his retirement became effective.

The interview process changed after Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C. notified the Department that the same attorney represented both Avila and Sanchez. According to the complaint, Dibartolomeo reacted angrily upon learning of the common representation and stated words to the effect of, “How can he represent both of them? That’s a conflict.” Plaintiffs allege that common representation disrupted the original interview structure because the two plaintiffs could no longer be isolated at separate locations while being questioned simultaneously outside the observation of the same attorney.

Before the interviews proceeded, counsel also placed Falette on written notice of specific conflicts involving Internal Affairs Group 51. The communication advised Falette that counsel represented retired Lieutenant Emilio C. Rodriques in separate litigation and that Falette had been identified as a potential fact witness concerning another officer’s transfer into Group 51. Counsel demanded executive-level review, screening, reassignment to an Internal Affairs group with no connection to the pending litigation, and preservation of communications, electronic messages, investigative records, and electronically stored information concerning the initiation and handling of the investigation.

The complaint alleges that Avila and Sanchez made clear that they would cooperate with a legitimate and conflict-free Department investigation. Falette nevertheless responded that she had spoken with her “Executive supervisor” and that Avila and Sanchez “will be expected to” appear. The interviews proceeded with Falette and Orellana participating in both, while Dibartolomeo was physically present during the Internal Affairs operation.

According to the complaint, the resulting interviews bore little resemblance to the original plan. Sanchez’s adversarial interview lasted approximately ten minutes and Avila’s approximately five minutes. Plaintiffs allege that the coordinated process failed to produce the discrepancy defendants intended to use as a disciplinary predicate and that Sanchez was not suspended before his retirement became effective.

The alleged retaliation did not end when Sanchez retired. His retirement became effective on August 11, 2026, after more than twenty years of NYPD service. Three days later, he reported to One Police Plaza at approximately 10:50 a.m. to surrender Department equipment and complete his retirement processing. According to the complaint, he remained there for approximately five hours while other retirees arrived, completed their processing, received their documents, and left.

Sanchez was eventually informed by a Department employee that Internal Affairs had placed a hold on his retirement documents. At approximately 3:58 p.m., he was permitted to leave with only a restricted retired NYPD identification card marked “No Firearm.” The complaint alleges that the City and Tisch withheld his unrestricted firearm-authorized retired identification card, H.R. 218-related documentation, and Good Guy Letter.

A Pension Section employee allegedly informed Sanchez that Lieutenant Moises Contreras of the Department Advocate’s Office had authorized issuance of only the restricted identification card. The asserted Department justification was that Sanchez had “retired pending charges.”

The new lawsuit directly challenges the use of that designation as a basis for imposing consequences. At the time of Sanchez’s retirement, no court had sustained the allegations against him, no administrative tribunal had adjudicated them, and no hearing had resulted in a finding that he improperly fraternized with Avila, made a false statement, failed to work an assigned tour, received compensation for time not worked, or committed misconduct through the use of manual attendance entries.

“The government can investigate, and it can bring charges, but it cannot simply convert accusation into adjudication because that is administratively convenient,” said Eric Sanders, Esq., founder and president of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “Our clients allege that the Department failed to obtain the disciplinary result it was seeking before Ray retired and then used the mere existence of unresolved charges to impose professional and retirement consequences after he left. That is precisely the type of retaliatory use of government power this case challenges.”

The complaint alleges that the City and Tisch used those unresolved allegations to impair Sanchez’s retirement status, credentials, accrued benefits, and future economic interests. It further alleges that the same unresolved disciplinary process was used or threatened as a basis to interfere with other retirement-related rights and accrued benefits, including terminal leave.

The action also relies upon Perros v. County of Nassau, No. 15-CV-5598 (GRB), Dkt. 155 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2025), where the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recognized the significance of retirement credentials for former law-enforcement officers. In Perros, the court described the Good Guy Letter as a retirement benefit upon which other benefits depended and recognized that restrictive credentials signaling that a retiree could not carry a firearm could operate as a visible stigma within the law-enforcement community.

“This is why these documents cannot be dismissed as administrative paperwork,” Sanders said. “They affect reputation, professional standing, firearm-related retirement status, future employment, earning capacity, and the dignity with which an officer leaves public service. When those interests are manipulated through unresolved accusations, the consequences are real.”

The new complaint also alleges that the retaliation directed at Sanchez operated as retaliation against Avila. Plaintiffs contend that targeting Avila’s romantic partner communicated that the consequences of protected activity could extend beyond the employee who complained and reach the person closest to her. That theory is central to the lawsuit because Sanchez had already been the subject of Moran’s hostility before Avila filed suit, and the Department’s subsequent use of Internal Affairs allegedly transformed that preexisting hostility into a broader institutional response.

“This case is not about whether the NYPD has authority to investigate its members,” Sanders said. “Of course it does. The issue is whether that authority can be used selectively, pretextually, and retaliatorily after an employee challenges discrimination and sexual harassment. The law does not permit a government employer to turn its investigative and disciplinary systems into tools for punishing protected activity.”

The new action seeks compensatory damages, emotional-distress damages, economic damages, recovery for lost compensation and impaired retirement interests, attorneys’ fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other relief permitted under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.

The allegations in the Verified Complaint have not yet been adjudicated, and the defendants will have an opportunity to respond 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

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

###

Read the Verified Complaint