FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Expanded Bronx Supreme Court lawsuit alleges racial harassment, selective discipline, scientifically discredited hair testing, obstruction of graduation, command-level favoritism, and retaliation against Emilio C. Andino because he is the nephew of retired NYPD Lieutenant Quathisha Epps

New York, N.Y. — July 12, 2026 — Civil-rights attorney Eric Sanders, of The Sanders Firm, P.C., has filed an expanded Verified Complaint in Bronx County Supreme Court on behalf of former New York City Police Department recruit Emilio C. Andino, alleging that the NYPD subjected him to racial and gender-based harassment, a one-sided internal investigation, suspension without pay, selective disciplinary charges, scientifically discredited and racially biased hair drug testing, obstruction of his graduation, and ultimately termination because of his race and his known familial relationship with retired NYPD Lieutenant Quathisha Epps.

Epps is Andino’s maternal aunt. On December 21, 2024, she filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and publicly accused then–NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey of quid pro quo sexual harassment and institutional misconduct within the Department’s executive ranks.

The new action replaces an earlier New York County filing and presents the completed course of alleged retaliation, including Andino’s June 2025 termination. It also names additional command-level, Police Academy, and Internal Affairs Bureau personnel whose roles became clearer after the original action was commenced.

The defendants include the City of New York; Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch; First Deputy Commissioner Tania I. Kinsella; former Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey; Chief of Training Martine N. Materasso; former Police Academy Commanding Officer Angel L. Figueroa; former Police Academy Executive Officer Arsenio Camilo; Elizabeth M. Laboy; Jose L. Caraballo; Brian T. Henry; Bahron Asliev; and Internal Affairs Bureau personnel Dwayne R. Harris, Evelyn Hall, Giuseppe Deangelis, and David R. Verna.

“This case is no longer merely about a recruit who was harassed and suspended,” Sanders said. “The NYPD permitted him to complete the academic requirements for graduation, then blocked his advancement and terminated him. The Department protected the instigator, weaponized its disciplinary machinery against the victim, and punished a young recruit because his aunt publicly challenged the highest levels of NYPD leadership.”

From Institutional Favor to Institutional Hostility

According to the Verified Complaint, Andino was sworn into the NYPD Police Academy on or about October 30, 2024, and assigned to Hook Company 24-56, a company associated with recruits who had personal or familial relationships with members of the Department.

Andino’s relationship with Epps was widely known among Police Academy recruits, instructors, supervisors, investigators, and command personnel. Before Epps publicly challenged NYPD leadership, that relationship was treated as an institutional asset.

After Epps’s December 21, 2024 EEOC filing and public disclosures against Maddrey, the same relationship allegedly became a source of institutional hostility.

The complaint alleges that recruits and Academy personnel began making crude, sexualized, and degrading remarks about Epps, including claims that she was “crazy,” was “lying for attention,” and had sexual recordings or nude photographs circulating within the Department. These statements were allegedly made in classrooms, hallways, locker rooms, gyms, and other Academy spaces, sometimes within hearing distance of instructors who failed to intervene.

Andino alleges that each individual defendant knew he was Epps’s nephew and knew that Epps had publicly accused Maddrey of sexual harassment and executive misconduct. The complaint characterizes the actions that followed as proxy retaliation: punishment directed at a person closely associated with someone who had engaged in protected opposition to discrimination.

Anti-Black Slurs Directed at a Dark-Skinned Hispanic Recruit

Andino is a dark-skinned Hispanic male. The lawsuit alleges that fellow recruit Bahron Asliev, an Asian male, repeatedly subjected him to anti-Black racial slurs, racial stereotypes, gendered insults, threats, and sexually explicit degradation.

Asliev allegedly made statements including: “Act like a n*****, get treated like a n*****,” while mocking Black speech, family structures, and cultural stereotypes in Andino’s presence.

The complaint alleges that the use of anti-Black slurs against Andino constituted racial discrimination directed at his complexion, racialized appearance, and identity as a dark-skinned Hispanic man.

Asliev’s hostility allegedly intensified after Epps publicly accused Maddrey of sexual harassment and institutional misconduct. Despite the alleged harassment, provocation, and post-incident admissions attributed to him, Asliev was permitted to continue training, graduate from the Police Academy, and obtain an assignment to the NYPD’s 88th Precinct, while Andino was suspended, charged, blocked from graduation, and terminated.

The April 1, 2025 Confrontation

On April 1, 2025, Andino and Asliev participated in a courtroom-testimony training exercise on the sixth floor of the Police Academy.

After the exercise, Andino provided feedback consistent with the classroom practice. Asliev allegedly responded: “If you could’ve done better, why didn’t you volunteer? You’re just a pussy and a bitch.”

As recruits moved down the stairway, Asliev allegedly continued the confrontation. On the third-floor landing, he entered Andino’s personal space, positioned himself chest-to-chest with him, and challenged him by stating: “What are you going to do if I don’t shut up?”

Andino attempted to disengage.

When they reached the first floor, Asliev allegedly escalated again, telling Andino: “You and your 12-year-old son can suck my dick.”

According to the complaint, Asliev again entered Andino’s personal space. Andino raised his hand to create distance, resulting in incidental contact with Asliev’s face.

That incidental contact became the basis for a disciplinary process directed almost entirely against Andino.

A One-Sided Investigation

The lawsuit alleges that Police Academy personnel immediately treated Andino as the aggressor and Asliev as the victim.

Then-Lieutenant Elizabeth M. Laboy allegedly isolated Andino, placed him under supervision, and spent substantial time privately conferring with Asliev before obtaining a complete account from Andino.

Lieutenant Jose L. Caraballo allegedly reinforced the same narrative without conducting a complete or impartial inquiry.

The complaint alleges that Laboy and Caraballo failed to obtain statements from all available witnesses, preserve relevant surveillance footage, or ensure that Andino’s allegations of racial and sexually charged harassment were referred for appropriate equal-employment review.

Andino remained at the Academy for approximately ten hours before receiving a formal interview. During that period, Academy personnel, supervisors, and union representatives allegedly spent extended periods conferring privately with Asliev.

“This was not an investigation designed to determine what happened,” Sanders said. “It was a process designed to decide who would be protected and who would be sacrificed.”

The PBA Delegate Allegedly Pressured Andino to Resign

At approximately 12:30 a.m. on April 2, 2025, Andino met with Police Benevolent Association delegate Brian T. Henry and a PBA attorney.

Andino allegedly described Asliev’s racial slurs, sexually explicit statements involving his minor son, threatening conduct, and physical provocation.

Rather than meaningfully challenge the investigation, Henry allegedly urged Andino to resign, stating in substance that resignation would be “cleaner” and warning that refusal could permanently impair his eligibility for future civil-service employment.

The complaint further alleges that Henry maintained communications with Asliev during the same disciplinary process despite representing Andino.

Internal Affairs Allegedly Ignored Witnesses and Surveillance Evidence

At approximately 12:45 a.m., Andino was interviewed by Internal Affairs Bureau personnel, including defendants Dwayne R. Harris, Evelyn Hall, Giuseppe Deangelis, and David R. Verna.

The complaint alleges that the investigation was subject to command review or oversight by Chief of Training Martine N. Materasso, then–Police Academy Commanding Officer Angel L. Figueroa, and then–Executive Officer Arsenio Camilo.

Andino again described Asliev’s racial epithets, threats, sexually explicit comments involving his son, and physical provocation.

Surveillance cameras allegedly covered the classroom, stairway, and first-floor areas through which the confrontation progressed. The lawsuit alleges that the investigators failed to obtain or preserve the footage, failed to interview all relevant witnesses, and failed to investigate Asliev’s statements as potential discriminatory misconduct.

Andino was suspended without pay. Asliev was not.

Asliev Allegedly Bragged That He “Hooked” Andino

After Andino’s suspension, Asliev allegedly boasted to recruits that he had provoked Andino into a disciplinary outcome.

The complaint identifies Joshua J. Veras, Lisette Batista, and Jonathan D. Suarez as individuals who possessed information concerning Asliev’s statements and admissions.

Asliev allegedly admitted that he told Andino to “suck [his] dick” and described the incident as having “hooked” Andino.

When confronted by Suarez, Asliev allegedly stated: “If you act like a n***, get treated like a n*****. Do you see how I hooked him? This isn’t the profession for him.”

Despite those alleged admissions, Asliev was permitted to continue training without discipline comparable to that imposed on Andino.

Reinstatement Followed by Scientifically Discredited Hair Testing

On or about May 1, 2025, Andino was directed to report to NYPD Headquarters in connection with his return to active recruit training.

Four days later, he was ordered to undergo radioimmunoassay of hair or enzyme immunoassay hair drug testing.

The lawsuit alleges that RIAH or EIA hair testing is a scientifically discredited and racially biased methodology that disproportionately affects Black and dark-skinned Hispanic personnel.

The test was allegedly neither random nor supported by individualized cause. Andino had not been accused of drug use, had no disciplinary history involving controlled substances, and was given no legitimate policy basis for the testing.

The Department never notified him of a positive result and brought no drug-related disciplinary charge.

“The timing was not accidental,” Sanders said. “The Department suspended him after refusing to investigate the racial harassment, then subjected him to a scientifically discredited testing method as a condition of returning. That was additional scrutiny imposed through a racially biased instrument.”

Formal Charges Based on an Allegedly Distorted Record

On May 9, 2025, Andino was ordered to report to the Department Advocate’s Office, where he was served with disciplinary charges under Department Advocate’s Office Serial No. C-033577.

The charge alleged that Andino violated NYPD Administrative Guide Procedure No. 304-06 by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency, and discipline of the Department through his alleged participation in the April 1 confrontation.

According to the complaint, the charge was issued at Figueroa’s direction, endorsed by Materasso, and supported by a UF-49 prepared by Camilo.

The complaint alleges that the UF-49 omitted Asliev’s racial remarks, threats, sexually explicit statements involving Andino’s son, physical provocation, and role in instigating the confrontation. It also allegedly failed to account for material witnesses, including Veras, Batista, and Suarez.

Even the Department’s incomplete account acknowledged that Asliev told Andino: “You and your son can suck my dick.”

Despite that admission, the NYPD brought charges against Andino but imposed no comparable charge or discipline upon Asliev.

Andino Scored 93—Then Was Blocked From Graduation

Andino continued his training despite his suspension, disciplinary charges, compelled hair testing, and pressure to resign.

On May 15, 2025, he sat for the Police Academy’s third and final trimester examination.

On May 16, 2025, he was informed that he had earned a score of 93. He had previously earned scores of 87 and 92 on his first and second trimester examinations.

By passing the final examination, Andino completed the Academy’s academic requirements for graduation and progression to field training.

He was nevertheless not permitted to graduate or proceed to field training.

In June 2025, the NYPD terminated his employment. The newly filed complaint expressly pleads that termination as the culmination of the alleged retaliatory campaign.

“The NYPD cannot plausibly portray this as a recruit who could not perform,” Sanders said. “Andino completed the academic requirements. He scored 93 on the final trimester examination. The Department did not eliminate him because he lacked ability. It eliminated him after its own one-sided disciplinary machinery had marked him for removal.”

Materasso and the Hypocrisy of Selective Discipline

The complaint also addresses the selective and hypocritical operation of the NYPD’s disciplinary system.

On or about May 14, 2025, Chief of Training Martine Materasso—the senior command official who endorsed Andino’s disciplinary charge—was publicly documented socializing with Jimmy “Jamie” Rodriguez at Sobro Garden in the Bronx.

Rodriguez had been publicly identified by former Lucchese crime family member and federal cooperating witness John Pennisi as an associate of the Lucchese crime family.

NYPD Administrative Guide Procedure No. 304-06(8)(c) prohibits members of the service from knowingly associating with persons reasonably believed to be engaged in, likely to engage in, or to have engaged in criminal activity.

The lawsuit alleges that no investigation, disciplinary charge, suspension, or corrective action was initiated against Materasso.

The allegation is not offered as a conventional direct comparator. It is pleaded as evidence of selective enforcement, command protection, institutional hypocrisy, and the absence of neutral disciplinary standards.

Materasso was permitted to invoke the Department’s prohibited-conduct rules against a recruit while remaining protected from scrutiny for conduct implicating another provision of the same disciplinary framework.

“The issue is not whether a chief and recruit hold the same rank,” Sanders said. “The issue is whether the rules mean anything. If the Department aggressively invokes prohibited-conduct rules against a dark-skinned Hispanic recruit tied to a whistleblower but refuses even to investigate a senior chief, that is not neutral discipline. That is command protection.”

Tisch and Kinsella Accused of Permitting the Retaliatory Process

The lawsuit alleges that Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch and First Deputy Commissioner Tania I. Kinsella possessed executive and disciplinary authority over the personnel systems through which Andino’s suspension, reinstatement conditions, blocked advancement, and termination were imposed.

The complaint alleges that both knew Andino was Epps’s nephew and knew Epps had publicly accused Maddrey of quid pro quo sexual harassment and institutional misconduct.

Despite that knowledge, the retaliatory process allegedly continued without correction.

“The Commissioner and First Deputy Commissioner cannot hide behind layers of command when the Department suspends, tests, charges, blocks, and terminates a recruit through systems operating under their authority,” Sanders said. “This was not one bad decision by one instructor. It was a sequence of escalating institutional decisions.”

Eight Causes of Action Under State and City Human Rights Laws

The Verified Complaint asserts eight causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law:

• Race discrimination;
• Sex and gender discrimination;
• Hostile work environment;
• Retaliation;
• Parallel race, gender, hostile-environment, and retaliation claims under the broader protections of the NYCHRL; and
• Individual aiding-and-abetting liability against the named defendants.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages against the individual defendants, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, expungement of adverse disciplinary records, reinstatement or restoration of employment status where appropriate, and other legal and equitable relief.

A Case About Proxy Retaliation

The case presents a broader question about institutional retaliation: whether a public employer may punish an employee not only for opposing discrimination personally, but also because of the employee’s close relationship with someone who publicly challenged powerful officials.

“This case is about guilt by association inside a public institution,” Sanders said. “The NYPD allegedly turned a recruit’s family relationship into a disciplinary liability. Andino was treated as an extension of Epps, and the Department used him to communicate what happens to people connected to those who challenge executive misconduct.”

The complaint alleges that the Department’s investigative and disciplinary mechanisms were not used to determine the truth neutrally, but to enforce institutional loyalty, protect favored personnel, and punish a recruit associated with a whistleblower.

“What happened to Emilio Andino was not a routine personnel dispute,” Sanders concluded. “It was institutional retaliation carried out through investigation, discipline, testing, blocked advancement, and termination. He completed the work. He passed the examinations. The Department removed him anyway.”

The action was filed on July 12, 2026, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The index number had not yet been assigned at the time of filing.

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