Plaintiff, Defendants. Plaintiff, TRAYON CHRISTIAN, by his attorney, MICHAEL B. PALILLO, P.C., complaining of the Defendants, alleges upon

Michael B. Palillo P.C. Attorney for the Plaintiff 277 Broadway Suite 501 New York, New York 10007 212-608-8959 212-608-0304 palillolaw@aol.com UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------X TRAYON CHRISTIAN Civil Action No: Date Filed: Plaintiff, -against- BARNEYS NEW YORK INC., THE CITY OF NEW YORK, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 NAMES FICTITIOUS, TRUE NAMES UNKNOWN INTENDED TO DESIGNATE POLICE OFFICERS AND DETECTIVES OF THE 19 TH PRECINCT AT THE TIMES AND PLACES ALLEGED VERIFIED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. -------------------------------------X S I R S: Plaintiff, TRAYON CHRISTIAN, by his attorney, MICHAEL B. PALILLO, P.C., complaining of the Defendants, alleges upon information and belief as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 and 1367(a), 28 U.S.C. 2001 and 2002, Rule 57 of the Fed. R. Civ. Pro., and 42 1

U.S.C. 2000(d) based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District, and because the Defendant BARNEYS has corporate offices that can be found and conduct business in this District. PARTIES AND FACTS 1. That this is an action for money damages to redress deprivation by Defendants of the rights secured to the Plaintiff, TRAYON CHRISTIAN, under the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the State of New York. 2. That the Plaintiff, at all dates and times hereinafter mentioned, was and still is a resident of the County of Queens, State of New York. 3. That at all dates and times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, BARNEYS NEW YORK INC. [hereinafter BARNEYS ] was and still is a foreign/domestic corporation duly authorized to transact business in the state of New York, with a business address located at 660 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. 4. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, THE CITY OF NEW YORK [hereinafter CITY ] was and 2

still is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of New York. 5. That at all times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendant, THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT [hereinafter NYPD ] was and still is a Department and/or Agency of the CITY of New York and operates under its supervision, management and control, and is responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, promotion and discipline of police officers, detectives and supervisory police officers and detectives, including the individually named Defendants herein. Defendant CITY, as an employer of the individual Defendant officers, is responsible for their wrongdoing under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 6. That at all dates and times hereinafter mentioned, the Defendants, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN KREMER, and UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES 1-5 NAMES FICTITIOUS, TRUE NAMES UNKNOWN INTENDED TO DESIGNATE POLICE OFFICERS AND DETECTIVES OF THE 19 TH AT THE TIMES AND PLACES ALLEGED were agents, servants and/or employees of the NYPD, a municipal agency for the CITY of New York, and acted within the scope of their employment as such. 7. The CITY, as a municipal entity, is authorized under the laws of the State of New York to maintain a police 3

department, NYPD, which acts as its agent in the area of law enforcement and for which the CITY is ultimately responsible. 8. The CITY assumes the risk incidental to the maintenance of its police force and employment of police officers. 9. Upon information and belief, the law enforcement activity of the CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT are funded in part with funds from the Federal Government. 10. That a Notice of Claim was duly presented to the CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT at the Office of the Comptroller of the CITY of New York on the 19 th day of June 2013, which was within ninety (90) days of the accrual of the cause of action herein. 11. That the CITY has demanded a hearing, pursuant to 50-H of the General Municipal Law, and a hearing was held on October 11, 2013. 12. Said claim has been presented for adjustment and payment and no adjustment or payment has been had. 13. This action has been brought within one (1) year and ninety (90) days of the happening of the event complained of. 14. That at all times herein mentioned, the Defendants CITY and NYPD were acting under color of law, that is, under 4

color of the Constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the CITY and State of New York. 15. The within claim against the Defendants is for unlawful search and seizure, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, unlawful detainment, assault, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training, racial profiling and discrimination, including but not limited to following, stopping, accusing, detaining and/or falsely charging Plaintiff with credit/charge card fraud and other acts of larceny based on Plaintiff s race and age, as Plaintiff was an African American, all in violation of laws including but not limited to: a-42 U.S.C. 1983, (Section 1983); b-42 U.S.C. 1981 (Section 1981, having denied the Plaintiff, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the same rights to enforce contracts, including the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of a contractual relationship, and the same rights to hold property as enjoyed by White citizens of the United States, in violation of the law); c-42 U.S.C. 1982 (Section 1982); d-42 U.S.C. 1985 (Section 1985 (3), having denied the Plaintiff, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, of equal protection of the laws and/or equal 5

privileges and immunities under the law, as are enjoyed by White citizens, including but not limited to the Civil Rights protected under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982); e-new York State Human Rights Law 40 (which prohibits places of public accommodation from withholding from or denying to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof based on a person's race or national origin); N.Y. Exec. Law (which proscribes that places of public accommodation cannot deny any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof based on a person s race or national origin); f-42 U.S.C. 2000(d) (Discrimination based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Discrimination based on race in law enforcement activities by programs the CITY and NYPD Law Enforcement Activities, receive Federal Assistance, in that No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits, or be 6

subjected to discrimination under any programs or activities receiving Federal Financial Assistance ); g-new York 296.2 (the NYSHRL ); h-the New York Civil Rights Law 40 (the NYCRL ) I-The CITY Human Rights Law ( NYCHRL ) and the N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-107 (stating that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for a place of public accommodation to refuse, withhold from or deny any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof to any person based on their race, color and/or national origin; j-the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; k-the laws of the State of New York; l-common law torts of false imprisonment; m-non-consensual detention; n-refusal to allow the Plaintiff to leave an area and physically preventing Plaintiff from leaving an area for a long period of time without his consent and/or against his will; o-negligence; 7

p-assault and battery; q-in placing the plaintiff in imminent and offensive bodily contact and/or wrongfully subjecting him to offensive physical contact without his consent; r-42 U.S.C. 1985 Conspiracy 16. The within claim arose on or about April 29, 2013 at approximately 3:00-4:00 p.m., inside BARNEYS and thereafter th th continued onto 5 Avenue and 60 Street, County, CITY and State of New York. 17. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN was inside BARNEYS on April 29, 2013 at approximately 3:00-4:00 p.m. as a consumer. 18. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN did purchase a Ferragamo belt while a customer at BARNEYS. 19. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN did use his own debit card to make said purchase. 20. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN exited BARNEYS, located at 660 Madison Avenue New York, New York, and was walking on a public sidewalk while holding a closed shopping bag containing the purchase he had made. 21. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN proceeded to walk to 5 th th Avenue at and about 60 Street, County, CITY and State of New York. 8

22. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN was lawfully present on the aforementioned sidewalk. 23. That suddenly and unexpectedly, TRAYON CHRISTIAN was subjected to an unlawful stop by undercover detectives/police officers employed by the NYPD and CITY. 24. That upon information and belief, TRAYON CHRISTIAN was subject to an unlawful stop by POM ALEXANDER KREMER. 25. That upon information and belief, TRAYON CHRISTIAN was subject to an unlawful stop by unidentified detectives/police officers JOHN DOE and JANE DOE. 26. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN was taken from where he was on the sidewalk, moved against his will, wherein hands were placed on his person, against a building, held against his will and accused of making a purchase from BARNEYS with a fraudulent and/or unauthorized debit/credit card. 27. That upon information and belief, the undercover detectives/police officers did detain TRAYON CHRISTIAN as a result of a notification made by the NYPD immediately following the purchase Plaintiff made. 28. That upon information and belief, the NYPD and CITY, their agents, servants and/or employees, were inside BARNEYS at the time Plaintiff made his purchase. 29. That upon information and belief, the NYPD and CITY, their servants and/or employees were inside BARNEYS at 9

the time Plaintiff made his purchase, with the permission, acquiescence and consent of BARNEYS, and in furtherance of the business interests of BARNEYS. 30. That upon information and belief, the undercover detectives/police officers did detain TRAYON CHRISTIAN as a result of a notification made by an agent, servant and/or employee of BARNEYS immediately following the purchase Plaintiff made. 31. That upon information and belief, the NYPD, CITY and BARNEYS did act in concert. 32. That upon information and belief, the NYPD and CITY, their agents, servants and/or employees, were present inside BARNEYS and witnessed TRAYON CHRISTIAN S purchase. 33. That upon information and belief, BARNEYS agents, servants and/or employees were present inside BARNEYS and witnessed TRAYON CHRISTIAN s purchase. 34. That while detained on the sidewalk, and at the request of the officers of the NYPD and CITY, TRAYON CHRISTIAN produced his identification, his debit card from Chase Bank as well as the receipt with his name on it for the purchase he made. 35. That in spite of producing such documentation, the officers of the NYPD and CITY looked into Plaintiff's shopping bag without Plaintiff's consent and told Plaintiff his 10

identification was false, his card was fake and that he could not afford to make such an expensive purchase. 36. No facts existed that would give rise to the inference that either Plaintiff s identification card or his debit/credit card was fake, false, fraudulent, altered, tampered with or in any other way unlawful. 37. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did place handcuffs onto the Plaintiff on a public sidewalk. 38. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did walk and parade the Plaintiff in handcuffs in the open and on a busy public sidewalk. 39. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did usher the handcuffed Plaintiff into a police vehicle. 40. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did drive th the handcuffed Plaintiff to the 19 Precinct. 41. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did remove the handcuffed Plaintiff from the police vehicle and did walk and parade him in handcuffs in the open, on a public roadway and sidewalk. 42. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did walk the Plaintiff into the police station in handcuffs and place him into a holding cell. 43. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did interrogate the Plaintiff. 11

44. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did hold the Plaintiff in a cell for approximately two (2) hours. 45. That the officers of the NYPD and CITY did release the Plaintiff from said cell and tell the Plaintiff he was free to go. 46. That the NYPD and CITY, by their agent, servant and/or employee KRAMER, did author an arrest report in which it is alleged that KRAMER witnessed the Plaintiff use a fraudulent credit/debit card. 47. At no time did TRAYON CHRISTIAN resist or attempt to resist the officers questions, interrogation or attempts to place handcuffs on him, the officers' placing him into a police vehicle or the officers' transporting him to the precinct. 48. TRAYON CHRISTIAN was aware of his confinement, did not consent to his confinement or the placing of hands onto his person and his arrest and detainment were not otherwise privileged. 49. That the CITY and NYPD did maintain a paid detail unit which provided off-duty uniformed personnel to private companies for an hourly fee. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD and CITY (42 U.S.C. 1985) 50. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and 12

incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 51. As such, the NYPD and CITY demonstrated a lack of justification for stopping, searching, seizing, questioning, and particularly handcuffing, parading on a public sidewalk, placing into police custody, transporting to a police station, interrogating, placing in a holding cell and/or detaining for two (2) hours and thereafter releasing TRAYON CHRISTIAN. 52. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN S race and/or national origin and the fact that he was purchasing an expensive Ferragamo belt in a high-end department/retail store served as the basis for the above described unlawful conduct of the NYPD and CITY. 53. That TRAYON CHRISTIAN was subject to a search and seizure of his person and belongings, including his shopping bag, falsely detained and taken into custody, arrested and unlawful imprisoned, all against his will and without his consent by the agents, servants and/or employees of the CITY and NYPD. 54. That the Defendants CITY and NYPD, their agents, servants and/or employees, acted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that TRAYON CHRISTIAN had committed, was committing or was immediately about to commit any crime, offense or violation, and without reasonable cause to believe that any criminal activity was afoot when the Defendants stopped TRAYON CHRISTIAN; opened a closed bag he had in his 13

possession; detained him on a public sidewalk; handcuffed him on a public sidewalk; assaulted him by placing their hands onto his person without his consent; arrested him; kept the Plaintiff handcuffed in a police car; forcibly transported the Plaintiff to th th the 19 Precinct, located at 153 East 67 Street New York, N.Y., where he was placed in a holding cell for over two hours; interrogated the Plaintiff; told the Plaintiff that he could not afford to purchase such an expensive belt and that his debit card had to be fake; and then released the Plaintiff without any criminal charges being filed against him; That the Defendants CITY and NYPD engaged and continue to engage in a practice, policy and/or custom of Stop and Frisk and Shop and Frisk namely, implementing and continuing to enforce, encourage and sanction policies, practices and/or customs that result in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional stops, searches, seizures, questioning and false arrests of innocent individuals of color who shop in high-end department and retail stores in the CITY, and who are suspected of having engaged in debit/credit card fraud and other acts of larceny within these stores by the NYPD merely because of the color of their skin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by focusing suspicion on shoppers of color, who are racially profiled and thereby suspected to have engaged in debit/credit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny. 14

That the crime statistics maintained by the CITY and NYPD evidence a higher percentage of people of color being racially profiled, detained, stopped, frisked and arrested over their White counterparts in the territorial jurisdiction of the th 19 pct. and in particular those shopping in high end department stores. This is evidenced by the claims of not only TRAYON CHRISTIAN, but the claim of KIMAREANNA ROSS who was also a shopper at BARNEYS who was detained and arrested, as well as the claim of actor ROB BROWN, who was a shopper in Macys, who was detained and arrested. All acts resulting in the detention and arrest of the above individuals were unilaterally determined by the CITY and NYPD to be crimes solely based on the amount of the purchase and the color of the person s skin. Claims of racial profiling by the CITY and NYPD have gained media wide attention and is still a rampant problem as echoed by Mayor De Blasio on or about January 31, 2014 in the announcement of a settlement of an historic racial profiling case of Floyd et al v. City of New York et al, 08 Civ. 1034 (SAS) which found the New York City Police Department s stop and frisk tactics were unconstitutional and the NYPD had resorted to a police of indirect racial profiling. 55. Upon information and belief, this policy and practice involves cooperating with high-end department stores, 15

such as BARNEYS, by stationing plain-clothes police officers and detectives outside the entrances to these high-end stores. 56. Upon information and belief, this policy and practice include the police officers and detectives being instructed to notify loss prevention officers in high-end department stores, such as BARNEYS, when young African American, Muslim and other minority males such as the Plaintiff enter the store so that the loss prevention officers can monitor their behavior, solely based on the color of their skin. 57. Upon information and belief, the practice, policy and/or custom of the CITY and NYPD include a quota system which puts pressure on individual officers and detectives to produce a certain number of stop and frisks and/or shop and frisks per month. 58. Upon information and belief, this practice, policy and/or custom of the CITY and NYPD cause the police officers and detectives to put pressure on the loss prevention officers of high-end department stores, such as BARNEYS, both inside and outside of these stores, to produce subjects whom the CITY, NYPD and NYPD officers and detectives can Stop and Frisk and/or Shop and Frisk outside of these department stores in order to meet their quotas. 59. That the conduct engaged in by the NYPD and CITY was authorized, directed, acquiesced to and/or ratified by the 16

NYPD and CITY, their agents, servants and/or employees, and that said conduct, as described above, denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the right to make and enforce contracts, including the right to enjoy all of the benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of a contractual relationship, as is available to White citizens; denied him the full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as enjoyed by White citizens; denied him the same right enjoyed by White citizens to hold property afforded to him under federal civil rights laws; and conspired to deprive him of equal protection and/or equal privileges and immunities under the laws as are enjoyed by White citizens. 60. Through the actions described above, the NYPD and CITY have acted knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, and/or with willful, wanton and reckless disregard for TRAYON CHRISTIAN s federally and state protected civil rights. 61. The NYPD s and CITY s widespread constitutional abuses have flourished as a result of, and have been directly and proximately caused by, ongoing patterns, practices, conspiracies, policies and/or customs devised, implemented and enforced by the NYPD, and through input of numerous high-end department stores, such as BARNEYS, constituting unlawful conduct. 17

62. The NYPD and CITY knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that their actions as described above were in violation of law. 63. That as a proximate/direct result of the actions of the CITY, NYPD, the agents, servants and/or employees, TRAYON CHRISTIAN, upon information and belief, suffered serious emotional and bodily injuries and damage to his reputation for which he may be required to seek additional medical care and treatment in the future. 64. TRAYON CHRISTIAN suffered serious emotional injuries, stress upon his physical system, psychological, emotional injury and anxiety, and damages the full extent of which is not known at this time, for which he was required to and will be required to seek health care in the future. 65. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as authorized and permitted to the highest extent of the law. 66. As a result of the NYPD and CITY acting knowingly, intentionally and/or willfully and/or with willful, wanton and reckless disregard for TRAYON CHRISTIAN and/or his federally protected rights, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE NYPD AND CITY OF NEW YORK 67. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and 18

incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 68. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting stops without a reasonable, articularly suspicion of criminal conduct and searching, seizing or arresting persons without probable cause. 69. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution bars police officers from targeting individuals for stops on the basis of race or national origin. 70. The NYPD has engaged in pervasive, unconstitutional practices which are a direct and proximate result of policies, practices and/or customs devised, implemented, enforced and/or sanctioned by the CITY with the knowledge that such policies, practices and customs would lead to violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 71. These practices, policies and customs include but are not limited to failing to properly screen, train and supervise NYPD officers, failing to adequately monitor and discipline NYPD officers and encouraging, sanctioning and failing to rectify the NYPD s custom and practices of unlawful stops, searches, seizures and arrests, including but not limited to officers assigned and working in the NYPD s Paid Detail 19

Unit. 72. That the NYPD and CITY, having knowledge that the work of the NYPD demands extensive training, superior judgment and close supervision, failed to properly screen, train and supervise NYPD officers, including supervisors, concerning the legal and factual basis for conducting stops, searches, seizures and/or arrests, and knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that such failures would result in constitutional violations. 73. That the NYPD has engaged in widespread abuses that are directly and proximately the result of the failure of the CITY to properly and adequately monitor discipline, to take necessary corrective actions against NYPD Officers who engage in, encourage or conceal these unconstitutional practices and to take sufficient corrective, disciplinary and remedial action to combat the so-called blue wall of silence wherein NYPD officers conceal on a consistent basis police misconduct or fail and/or refuse to report same. 74. The NYPD s, CITY s, and NYPD Officers' actions constitute constitutional abuses, and the Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 75. The CITY and NYPD have implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a policy, practice and custom of 20

stopping, searching, seizing and arresting individuals of color, including the Plaintiff, without reasonable articularly suspicion of criminality or probable cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment. 76. The NYPD 's and CITY s actions constitute constitutional abuses and violations which were and are directly and proximately caused by the policies, practices and customs implemented, enforced and encouraged by the NYPD and CITY, and the NYPD and the CITY have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 77. The NYPD has acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of those who would come into contact with NYPD officers by inadequately monitoring NYPD officers and their practices related to retail stores and crime enforcement; by failing to sufficiently discipline NYPD officers who engage in constitutional abuses; by encouraging, sanctioning and failing to ratify the NYPD s unconstitutional practices; by adopting, implementing, enforcing and/or encouraging a practice, policy and custom whereby responding officers do not inquire into the factual basis for arrests and detentions or determine whether there exist any objective facts that establish probable cause to arrest an individual, but rather rely on conclusions made by store security personnel in high- 21

end stores in which customers are accused or suspected of credit card/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny; by adopting, implementing, enforcing and/or encouraging a practice, policy and custom whereby, rather than inquiring into whether there are facts known that establish probable cause to arrest an individual, police officers routinely arrest, with a deliberate indifference, customers of high-end department stores who are accused or suspected of debit/credit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny by store personnel, without knowing whether they actually have probable cause to arrest; that there is a policy, practice and custom of NYPD officers arresting individuals suspected or accused of debit/credit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny without probable cause. 78. As a direct and proximate cause of the CITY s and NYPD s policies, practices and customs, the Plaintiff was subjected to an unconstitutional stop, search, seizure, questioning and false arrest by NYPD Officers. 79. The NYPD and CITY have acted with a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff s Fourth Amendment rights. 80. The NYPD and CITY, having acted under color of law to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights under the Fourth Amendment, are in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, which prohibits the deprivation under color of state law of the Plaintiff's rights secured under the United States Constitution. 22

81. The NYPD and CITY have engaged in a practice, policy and custom of targeting African American individuals who shop at high-end department/retail stores in New York CITY for illegal stops, searches, seizures and arrests, including but not limited to police officers assigned to the NYPD s Paid Detail Unit. 82. The policies of the NYPD and CITY have subjected the Plaintiff to stops, searches, seizures and arrests without any reasonable articularly suspicion of criminality or probable cause, but rather on the basis of Plaintiff s race and/or national origin. 83. As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has suffered serious and irreparable harm to his constitutional rights including but not limited to the rights afforded him under 42 U.S.C. 1985. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK (42 U.S.C. 1983) 84. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 85. The NYPD and CITY have engaged in a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights, as a result of which Plaintiff s rights have been violated. 23

86. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the NYPD and CITY, acting under color of state law to deprive the Plaintiff of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, the NYPD and CITY have deprived the Plaintiff of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND NYPD 87. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 88. Upon information and belief, the CITY and NYPD receive Federal Financial Assistance for law enforcement activities. 89. That under 42 U.S.C. 2000(d), No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal Funds, such as the CITY and NYPD. 90. As a direct and proximate cause of the CITY s and NYPD s policies, practices and customs, as set forth above, the Plaintiff was subject to discrimination under a program which receives Federal Funds, to wit, the CITY and the NYPD. 91. The NYPD and CITY have acted with a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff s rights under 42 U.S.C. 2000(d). 24

92. The NYPD and CITY acted under color of law to deprive the Plaintiff of his rights under the 42 U.S.C. 2000(d). AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT AND JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 93. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 94. The conduct of the Defendants POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5, as set forth above, were performed under color of law and without any reasonable suspicion of criminality or other constitutional grounds. 95. The stop, search, seizure, detention and arrest of the Plaintiff were performed on the basis of racial and/or national origin and racial profiling. 96. As a direct and proximate result of such acts, the Defendants POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 deprived the Plaintiff of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 97. That as a proximate/direct result to the actions of the CITY and the NYPD, their agents, servants and/or employees, TRAYON CHRISTIAN, upon information and belief, suffered serious emotional and bodily injuries and damage to his 25

reputation for which he may be required to seek additional medical care and treatment in the future. 98. TRAYON CHRISTIAN suffered serious emotional injuries, stress upon his physical system, psychological, emotional injury and anxiety, and damages the full extent of which is not known at this time, for which he was required to and will be required to seek health care in the future. 99. That the acts of the Defendants, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 were intentional, wanton, malicious, reckless and oppressive, entitling the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT AND JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 100. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 101. The NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 have denied the Plaintiff the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by White citizens of the Untied States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1982. 102. Due to the discriminatory conduct and unlawful practices, polices and customs of Defendants NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE 26

DOES 1-5, the Plaintiff has been denied the enjoyment, privileges, terms and conditions of his contractual relations with BARNEYS. 103. The NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES 1-5 have engaged in a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom of discriminating against African American shoppers in high-end department/retail stores in New York CITY due to their race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. 104. The actions of NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 were and are intended and have been enforced with a deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's federally and state protected rights. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT AND JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 105. Plaintiff repeats reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 106. The NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 have denied the Plaintiff, based on his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the same right to hold personal property as is 27

enjoyed by White citizens of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1982. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT AND JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 107. Plaintiff repeats reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 108. The NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 have committed the following wrongful acts against the Plaintiff that are tortuous under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York: assault battery false arrest false imprisonment negligence violation of rights otherwise guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York 109. The NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 were negligent, careless and reckless in the hiring, screening, training and retention of POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5. 28

110. The actions of the Defendants NYPD, CITY, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 were a direct and proximate cause of injury and damages to the Plaintiff and violated the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, as guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. AS AND FOR AN NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT AND JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 111. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 112. The actions of the Defendants, POM ALEXANDER KREMER, LSA STEPHEN BARRETT and JOHN DOES and JANE DOES 1-5 occurred while they were in the course of and within the scope of their duties and functions as New York CITY Police officers, agents, servants and/or employees of the CITY and NYPD. 113. The Defendants CITY and NYPD are liable to the Plaintiff under the doctrine of respondent superior. AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BARNEYS 29

114. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 115. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS engaged in a pattern of racially profiling African American/Black shoppers as suspected criminals. 116. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS store employees and security/loss prevention personnel commonly, routinely and disproportionately target and follow people of color for suspicion of shoplifting, credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny. 117. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS disproportionately subjects shoppers of color to false accusations of unlawful activity, wrongful detention, unjustified body and property searches, false imprisonment, wrongful confiscation of property and other harassment on the basis of their race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color. 118. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS has a policy and practice of its employees and security/loss prevention personnel of targeting people of color for surveillance as soon as they enter BARNEYS, as well as certain departments within the store. 119. Upon information and belief, people of color are targeted to be followed by BARNEYS security/loss prevention 30

personnel and plain-clothes law enforcement personnel and to be observed by closed circuit surveillance system as they move throughout BARNEYS. 120. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS employees are also trained to target people of color for suspected credit/debit card fraud and other acts of larceny, and to then to alert security personnel and others to follow these individuals and later detain them and accuse them of unlawful conduct. 121. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS practice and policy, as set forth above, date back in excess of twenty (20) years, including but not limited to Johnnie Roberts account of how he was treated at BARNEYS in the spring of 1990. This account was published in a 1996 column in Newsweek and retold by Kim Baskin in a Huffington Post article dated October 25, 2013, and BARNEYS above described practice and policy has continued thereafter. 122. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS employees are also trained to request two (2) forms of identification from people of color before allowing them to consummate a purchase or transaction. 123. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS employees do not request two (2) forms of identification from White customers before allowing them to consummate a purchase or transaction. 31

124. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS has a written policy and practice, contained in its employee manual, of rewarding store agents, servants, personnel and/or employees who are involved in targeting people of color who allegedly shoplift and/or make purchases of merchandise by engaging in credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny. 125. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS has a written policy and practice, contained in its employee handbook, of rewarding store agents, servants, personnel and/or employees who are instrumental in apprehending people of color who engage in shoplifting and/or making purchases of merchandise by engaging in credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny, by paying said employees a percentage of the value of recovered merchandise. 126. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS policy and practice encourages its agents, servants, personnel and/or employees to aggressively target people of color in order to receive a financial reward. 127. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS maintains a department in its store that offers merchandise for sale aimed at a class of shoppers considered Urban Males, i.e. males of color. 128. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS maintains a department in its store that offers merchandise for sale aimed 32

at a class of shoppers considered White Females. 129. Upon information and belief, a disproportionate number of people of color, or Urban Male customers, are stopped, detained and/or searched by BARNEYS agents, servants and/or employees, and this number is greater than the number of White Female customers stopped, detained and/or searched by BARNEYS agents, servants and/or employees. 130. Upon information and belief, a disproportionate number of people of color, or Urban Male customers, are arrested as a result of the actions of BARNEYS, their agents, servants and/or employees, and this number is greater than the number of White Female customers arrested as a result of the actions of BARNEYS agents, servants and/or employees. 131. Upon information and belief, a disproportionate number of people of color, or Urban Male customers, are prosecuted as a result of the above described actions of BARNEYS agents, servants and/or employees. 132. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS permitted the CITY and NYPD to view its closed circuit surveillance system during business hours. 133. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS did act in concert with the CITY and NYPD in conducting surveillance of people of color who purchase merchandise is its store. 33

134. Upon information and belief, this conduct is engaged in, authorized, fostered and/or condoned by and among owners, supervisors, department heads, store managers, directors, security directors/loss prevention personnel, security managers and/or agents, servants and/or employees employed by BARNEYS. 135. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS maintained a security director(s)/loss prevention personnel, security managers and/or agents, servants and/or employees who did have a quota of stops, detentions, searches and/or arrests they needed to make on a monthly basis. 136. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS maintained a practice and policy of maintaining a quota of stops, detentions and/or arrests its security director(s)/loss prevention personnel, security managers and/or agents, servants and/or employees needed to make on a monthly basis. 137. Upon information and belief, as a result of this practice and policy, a disproportionate number of people of color were stopped, detained, searched, arrested and/or prosecuted. 138. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS above described pattern and practice of racial profiling and/or targeting African American/Black and other non-white shoppers for committing fraud and/or other crimes of deceit, and of detaining such shoppers on the basis of their race, national origin, 34

ethnicity and/or color, violate the civil rights of those shoppers. 139. Such civil rights violations and other unlawful conduct has occurred with the full knowledge, approval, acquiescence and/or ratification of BARNEYS. 140. BARNEYS common discriminatory practices include but are not limited to: Subjecting people of color to false accusations of shoplifting, credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny in disproportionately high percentages; Subjecting people of color suspected of shoplifting and/or committing credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny to unlawful and false detention, search, apprehension and arrest, in disproportionately high percentages; Subjecting people of color suspected of shoplifting and/or committing credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny to baseless criminal prosecution in disproportionately high percentages; Stereotyping shoppers of color as likely criminals and then targeting and following such persons for no reason but their race; 35

Conducting surveillance of shoppers of color disproportionately more than White customers, resulting in people of color being disproportionately followed, stopped, questioned, detained and ultimately falsely charged with crimes they did not commit. 141. That the above described racially-motivated abuses constitute an ongoing pattern and practice that has occurred and is continuing to occur. 142. BARNEYS above described policy and practice give security/loss prevention managers, directors and/or executives unfettered discretion to decide, among other things, which shoppers will be followed and which shoppers will be detained under suspicion of shoplifting, committing debit/credit card fraud and/or committing other acts of larceny. 143. This discretion to exercise subjective decision making in deciding whom to follow and apprehend has a disparate discriminatory impact and leads to systematic discrimination against African-American/Black and other non-white shoppers, in violation of those shoppers' civil rights. 144. Upon information and belief, in addition to targeting African-American/Black and non-white shoppers for disproportionate surveillance and detention on suspicion of 36

shoplifting, credit/debit card fraud and/or other acts of larceny, BARNEYS security/loss prevention managers, directors and/or executives also criminally prosecute a higher percentage of people of color who have been detained as compared to White/Caucasian suspects who have been detained. 145. Upon information and belief, the decision whether a suspect will be criminally prosecuted is not controlled by any objective, race-neutral factors. 146. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS policies and practices establish an entirely subjective decision making process that permits security/loss prevention managers, directors and/or executives to systematically discriminate against people of color in, among other things, deciding which larceny suspects will or will not be prosecuted. 147. Upon information and belief, this discretion in exercising entirely subjective decision making regarding whom to prosecute, and/or other decisions within BARNEYS corporate-wide security practices, leads to systematic discrimination against African-American/Black and non-white shoppers, in violation of those shoppers' civil rights. 148. Upon information and belief, the actions and conduct of BARNEYS which resulted in the unlawful detainment, search, and arrest of TRAYON CHRISTIAN, was authorized, directed, acquiesced to and/or ratified by BARNEYS, its agents, servants 37

and/or employees, who as described above, denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, his right to make and enforce contracts, including the right to enjoy all of the benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of a contractual relationship available to White citizens; denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN the full and equal benefits of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as enjoyed by White citizens; denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN the same rights enjoyed by White citizens to hold property afforded him under federal civil rights laws; and conspired to deprive him of the equal protection and/or privileges and immunities of the laws enjoyed by White citizens. 149. Upon information and belief, through the actions described above, BARNEYS acted knowingly, intentionally and/or with willful, wanton and reckless disregard for TRAYON CHRISTIAN S federally and state protected civil rights. 150. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS actions have subjected TRAYON CHRISTIAN to false imprisonment, assault, battery and harm resulting from BARNEYS negligent hiring, training and supervision of security/loss prevention personnel, agents, servants and/or employees. 151. Upon information and belief, the actions of BARNEYS as described above constitute a continuing violation and an ongoing pattern and practice of unlawful conduct. 38

152. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that its actions as described above were in violation of law. 153. Upon information and belief, as a result of the actions of BARNEYS, its agents, servants and/or employees as described above, TRAYON CHRISTIAN has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable loss and injury, including but not limited to mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, physical and emotional distress, feelings of paranoia, distrust, low self-esteem, sleep deprivation, loss of enjoyment of life, interference with life s daily activities and a deprivation of his civil rights. 154. For these injuries, TRAYON CHRISTIAN seeks compensatory damages to the fullest extent permitted under the law. 155. Because BARNEYS acted knowingly, intentionally and maliciously and/or with willful, wanton and reckless disregard for TRAYON CHRISTIAN and/or his federally protected rights, TRAYON CHRISTIAN also seeks punitive damages. AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BARNEYS 156. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 39

157. Upon information and belief, by the actions described above, BARNEYS has denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the same right to make and enforce contracts, including the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of contractual relationships, as enjoyed by White citizens of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. 158. Upon information and belief, due to the above described conduct of BARNEYS, TRAYON CHRISTIAN has suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages. AS AND FOR AN TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BARNEYS 159. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 160. Upon information and belief, by the actions described above, BARNEYS has denied TRAYON CHRISTIAN, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the same right to make and enforce contracts, including the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of contractual relationships, as enjoyed by White citizens of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1982. 40

161. Upon information and belief, due to the above described conduct of BARNEYS, TRAYON CHRISTIAN has suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages. AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT BARNEYS 162. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation previously set forth herein at length. 163. Upon information and belief, by the actions described above, BARNEYS has engaged in a conspiracy to deprive TRAYON CHRISTIAN, on the basis of his race, national origin, ethnicity and/or color, the same right to make and enforce contracts, including the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms and conditions of contractual relationships, as enjoyed by White citizens of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). 164. Upon information and belief, there has been a corrupt agreement by BARNEYS, its agents, servants, officers and/or employees and others to deprive African-American/Black and non-white persons of the equal protection of the laws and/or privileges and immunities under the laws, including but not limited to the protections, privileges and immunities afforded them under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982. 165. Upon information and belief, BARNEYS has engaged in 41