Aggressive, Relentless Action Gets Results

“I thank all our sergeants who appeared at CCRB during the past three weeks and, without question or hesitation, cooperated with our efforts to challenge the appointment of Mr. Emery and contributed to our success in having him disqualified from the Luckey case and any future cases involving our members who have had CCRB complaints made against them.” – Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York City

Dear Fellow Sergeant:

From the outset, the SBA has challenged the appointment of Richard Emery as Chairman of CCRB by Mayor de Blasio. From the outset, we believed that Mr. Emery’s position as Chairman constituted a conflict of interest since he routinely files civil rights lawsuits against the City, the Department and, most importantly, our members. We appealed to the Mayor’s Office and that of Commissioner Bratton contesting the appointment of Mr. Emery, who has an established history of bringing claims against police officers. We argued, unsuccessfully, that Mr. Emery could not be fair and impartial, and his position as CCRB Chairman was hostile to the rights of police officers.

On February 11, 2016, our suspicions were confirmed when Mr. Emery’s law firm began representing a CCRB complainant, Stephon Luckey, against one of our members, Sergeant Jared Hospedales. The timeline of the case was most troubling: after Mr. Emery’s CCRB investigation was concluded, his Firm replaced another attorney who had represented Luckey and sought to take over the lawsuit. Our response to Mr. Emery’s effort to profit off of a case his agency handled was immediate: On February 14, 2016, I appeared at CCRB and indicated that no SBA member would be questioned by any CCRB investigator unless and until Mr. Emery was removed from his position. My actions on that day essentially shut down all CCRB investigations. We then waited for the Department’s response. That wait lasted for one week.

On February 21, 2016, we were advised that Commissioner Bratton’s Office, rather than support our members and demand Mr. Emery’s removal from CCRB, had inexplicably ordered our members to appear at CCRB and answer CCRB’s questions. We were instructed that refusal to answer CCRB’s questions would result in a sergeant’s immediate suspension and, potentially, termination. Because we were not willing to permit our members to suffer the financial repercussions of Commissioner Bratton’s orders, we complied. To a point.

Since February 21, 2016, we have appeared every day at each CCRB interview and refused to allow our members to answer any questions unless and until a superior officer personally appeared and ordered our members to answer CCRB’s questions. We also demanded that, prior to answering any questions, CCRB was mandated to place “on the record” that Mr. Emery would not benefit financially from CCRB’s investigation.

In response to the SBA’s demands, Mr. Emery announced on March 1, 2016 that he would no longer associate himself or his Firm with any case that was investigated by CCRB. Which was a good first step. However, he had not removed himself from representing Stephon Luckey.

On March 2, 2016, our SBA attorneys filed a letter motion with the federal judge overseeing the Luckey case demanding that the Emery Firm be disqualified from the case since their continued representation was unethical and constituted a conflict of interest. The SBA sought Mr. Emery’s complete removal from the case.

Tonight, rather than challenge the SBA’s position, Mr. Emery’s Firm withdrew from the Luckey case. As a result, thanks to our combined efforts, Mr. Emery will no longer financially benefit from his position as CCRB Chairman on the backs of our members.

I would like to thank all of the sergeants who appeared at CCRB during the past three weeks and, without question or hesitation, cooperated with our efforts to challenge the appointment of Mr. Emery and contributed to our success in having him disqualified from the Luckey case and any future cases involving our members who have had CCRB complaints made against them.

Fraternally,

Ed Mullins