§ 1-33 Case Dispositions.
RCNY § 1-33
(a)Pursuant to Chapter 18-A, Section 440(c)(1) of the Charter, no finding or recommendation shall be based solely upon an unsworn complaint or statement, nor shall prior unable to determine, unfounded or withdrawn complaints be the basis for any such finding or recommendation.
(b)Panels or the Full Board will employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof in evaluating Cases.
(c)The findings and recommendations with respect to each Case reviewed by the Board will be submitted to the Police Commissioner.
(d)Where the disposition of one or more allegations is "Substantiated," as defined in Subdivision (e) of this section, the Board's findings and recommendations will be forwarded in writing to the Police Commissioner within five business days and include appropriate pedigree information regarding the subject officer, the Case number and any other control or serial number assigned to the Case, and a summary of the pertinent facts. Based on its findings, the Board may recommend penalties of Charges, command discipline, formalized training, instructions, or any combination of these. However, if the Board or panel recommends Charges for any Case allegation against a subject officer, all substantiated allegations against that officer will be included as part of that recommendation.
(e)The following categories of Case investigation dispositions will be used in reports to the Police Commissioner: (1) Substantiated: there was a preponderance of evidence that the acts alleged occurred and constituted misconduct.
(2)Unable to Determine: there was insufficient evidence to establish whether or not there was an act of misconduct.
(3)Within NYPD Guidelines: there was a preponderance of the evidence that the acts alleged occurred but did not constitute misconduct.
(4)Unfounded: there was a preponderance of the evidence that the acts alleged did not occur.
(5)Complaint Withdrawn: the Complainant withdrew the complaint.
(6)Unable to Investigate: the Complainant could not be reached or located, or the Alleged Victim could not be reached or located, the participation of the Complainant was insufficient to enable the Board to conduct a full investigation, the participation of the Alleged Victim was insufficient to enable the Board to conduct a full investigation, the Board could not identify the Alleged Victim and therefore was unable to conduct a full investigation.
(7)Closed – Pending Litigation: the Complainant or Victim chose not to cooperate with the investigation on the advice of counsel.
(8)Officer Unidentified: the Board was unable to identify the officer who was the subject of the allegation.
(9)Referral: the complaint was referred to another governmental entity.
(10)No Jurisdiction: the complaint does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Board.
(11)Other Possible Misconduct Noted: the Board found evidence during its investigation that an officer committed misconduct not traditionally investigated by the Board, but about which the Police Department should be aware.
(12)Mediated: the parties to the mediation agreed that the complaint should be considered as having been resolved through mediation.
(13)Mediation Attempted: the parties agreed to mediate the complaint but the civilian subsequently did not participate in the mediation.
(14)Miscellaneous: the subject of the complaint is not currently employed by the Police Department as a police officer.
(15)Administrative Closure: the Case was referred to the Board by another agency, not by a member of the public, and the Board was unable to conduct a full investigation. (Amended City Record 1/2/2018, eff. 2/1/2018; amended City Record 2/24/2021, eff. 3/26/2021; amended City Record 9/22/2022, eff. 10/22/2022)
