On February 13, 2013, the City of Paterson (Passaic County) agreed to pay $25,000 to the owner of a take-out chicken restaurant and son who had claimed Paterson Police used excessive force against them.
In their suit, Ajab Gul, who owns New York Fried Chicken on Rosa Parks Boulevard in Patersonm and his son Sikander Hawa complain about their July 25, 2010 interaction with Paterson Police Officers Wilson Lazu and Robert Hintzen.
According to the plaintiffs, the police had previously ticketed Gul repeatedly for "maintaining a nuisance" because people would congregate outside his restaurant. According to Gul and Hawa, Lazu and Hintzen ordered customers out of the restaurant on July 25, 2010 and were set to issue Gul another "maintaining a nuisance" ticket. Gul claims that instead of issuing the summons, the two officers assaulted him "using excessive and unnecessary force." Gul claims that the officers took his wallet and left the store with it.
The officers then allegedly assaulted Hawa, who Gul had called for assistance. Hawa had allegedly questioned the officers on why they kept issuing his father "maintaining a nuisance" tickets. Hawa claimed that he was "handcuffed roughly" and pushed inside a patrol car. He was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstructing a Governmental Function. Hawa said that the charges were later dismissed.
According to Hawa, Lazu and Hintzen, while driving him to the police station, spoke disparagingly about his national origin, stating "What are you doing here? You shouldn't be in this country."
Also named in the suit was Paterson Police Chief James Wittig.
The case is captioned Hawa and Gul v. Paterson, Federal Case No. 2:12-cv-04494 and Hawa's and Gul's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.
None of Hawa's or Gul's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paterson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Paterson or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided to pay Hawa and Gul $25,000 rather than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.