FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lawsuit alleges NYPD withheld earned time, denied retirement credentials, restricted retired identification, and impaired firearm-related employment opportunities after choosing not to try disciplinary charges before service retirement.

New York, N.Y. — June 19, 2026 — Eric Sanders, Esq., of The Sanders Firm, P.C., announces that Retired NYPD Police Officer ANGEL L. ESTRELLA has filed a human-rights lawsuit in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, against THE CITY OF NEW YORK and Police Commissioner JESSICA S. TISCH, in her official and individual capacities, alleging race discrimination, national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful post-retirement punishment.

The lawsuit alleges that Estrella, a Hispanic/Latino retired NYPD police officer who self-identifies as Dominican, served approximately twelve years with the NYPD, including service while assigned to the 52nd Precinct in Bronx County. The complaint further alleges that Estrella also served approximately eight years in the United States Marine Corps and purchased or otherwise credited that qualifying military service toward his retirement eligibility.

According to the complaint, Estrella retired by service retirement, not disability retirement. As a service retiree, the complaint alleges, he was entitled to the retirement benefits, accrued computed time, terminal leave, retirement processing, credentials, and related post-retirement benefits customarily afforded to eligible NYPD service retirees.

The lawsuit arises from NYPD’s alleged use of unresolved and unproven disciplinary charges after Estrella’s retirement became effective.

According to the complaint, in or about April 2025, Estrella received Department charges arising from a Civilian Complaint Review Board matter connected to an incident involving Estrella while he was assigned to the 52nd Precinct. The complaint alleges that the Department charges were based on allegations only, were never tried, were never proven, and never resulted in any plea, guilty finding, final disciplinary adjudication, or judicial determination.

After receiving the Department charges, Estrella filed for service retirement on or about June 9, 2025. His service retirement became effective on or about July 9, 2025.

The complaint alleges that, during the approximately thirty-day period between Estrella’s retirement filing and the effective date of his retirement, THE CITY OF NEW YORK  and Commissioner TISCH had the opportunity to schedule and prosecute the Department charges before his retirement became final. They chose not to do so.

The complaint further alleges that, before Estrella retired, NYPD did not change his duty status, did not remove him from full-duty status, and did not make any contemporaneous determination that he posed a safety, fitness, integrity, firearm-related, or employment-related risk.

Despite that, the lawsuit alleges, after Estrella retired, defendants treated the unresolved Department charges as if they were adjudicated misconduct. According to the complaint, defendants withheld or seized Estrella’s accrued computed time and terminal leave, denied him a Good Guy Letter or NYPD equivalent, issued him a restricted-use retired identification card, refused to support or process firearm-related retirement authorization, and impaired his ability to obtain post-retirement employment.

“This case is about a basic principle: unproven allegations are not findings of misconduct,” said attorney Eric Sanders of The Sanders Firm, P.C. “The complaint alleges that NYPD had the opportunity to try the charges before Mr. Estrella’s service retirement became effective and elected not to do so. Having made that choice, the Department cannot lawfully treat untried allegations as proven misconduct to strip a Hispanic/Latino, Dominican retired officer of earned time, terminal leave, credentials, firearm-related retirement processing, and employment opportunities.”

The complaint alleges that the post-retirement consequences were not neutral retirement processing. Instead, Estrella alleges that defendants imposed economic, credentialing, firearm-related, and employment-disabling penalties based on unresolved charges that NYPD never proved.

The lawsuit also alleges disparate treatment. Upon information and belief, similarly situated non-Hispanic, non-Latino, and non-Dominican officers who retired with unresolved disciplinary allegations, pending CCRB matters, substantiated but unadjudicated CCRB allegations, open Department charges, or comparable alleged misconduct were not subjected to comparable post-retirement penalties.

The complaint further alleges retaliation. According to the lawsuit, Estrella opposed, challenged, objected to, grieved, appealed, complained about, or refused to accept defendants’ alleged discriminatory and disproportionate use of unresolved and unproven Department charges. The complaint alleges that defendants then maintained, continued, ratified, or refused to correct the withholding of his accrued computed time and terminal leave, the denial of his Good Guy Letter or NYPD equivalent, the restricted-use retired identification card, the refusal to process firearm-related retirement authorization, and related employment-disabling consequences.

“The allegations are especially troubling because Mr. Estrella retired by service retirement after combining NYPD service with credited United States Marine Corps service,” Sanders said. “The complaint alleges that, instead of honoring the benefits attached to that service retirement, NYPD converted an untried disciplinary accusation into a permanent post-retirement disability.”

The lawsuit asserts claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for race and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and aiding-and-abetting liability against Commissioner TISCH in her individual capacity. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, restoration or payment of all withheld accrued computed time and terminal leave, correction of personnel and retirement records, removal of the restricted-use retired identification designation, issuance or lawful reconsideration of a Good Guy Letter or NYPD equivalent, lawful processing of firearm-related retirement authorization, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, and all other relief deemed just and proper.

“No police officer should be punished after retirement based on allegations the Department chose not to prove,” Sanders said. “That is not discipline. That is administrative punishment without adjudication. When that punishment is imposed selectively against a Hispanic/Latino, Dominican retired officer and maintained after he objects, it becomes a civil-rights case.”

The complaint contains allegations. The defendants have not yet answered, and the allegations must be proven 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

Read the Verified Complaint

###