In January of 2011, BatteryPark.TV exclusively reported on the assault of a local BPC man, Adam Pratt, who was walking his dog and was asked for his identification by a PEP officer (The PEP, at the time, had a policy of asking ID from virtually any dog owner). He refused and was then gang tackled by several PEP and arrested. Mr. Pratt, an owner of a large apartment at the time and with some expendable money from inheritance, then decided to sue the City (the employer of the PEP), and the BPCA.
BP.TV followed the case closely and spoke with the lawyers representing Mr. Pratt. They were not retained on contingency, but rather were paid by Mr. Pratt. There were numerous motions filed and court appearances made by his lawyers. The legal fees, if properly billed and paid, had to exceed tens of thousands of dollars.
Although Mr. Pratt did not sustain any obvious physical damages from the assault and arrest, he was publicly humiliated and traumatized. He was sent to Bellevue Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and released. No charges we ever filed.
Mr. Pratt has said publicly that his lawsuit was more of an attempt to get justice and raise awareness of the abusive patterns of the PEP, which were managed at the time by Captain Ed Falcon. Mr. Falcon has since been replaced by Captain Lerner, and most of the PEP who actually assaulted Mr. Pratt were reassigned to other parks. Mr. Pratt had insisted on a jury trial and claims to have turned down previous settlement offers.
(Of note, BP.TV reporting likely had more to do with Captain Falcon’s departure in 2014 than did Mr. Pratt’s efforts. We reported on numerous violations committed by Captain Falcon and caused a federal investigation.)
Now, in the news today is a story given my Mr. Pratt to the Broadsheet claiming that his lawsuit has been dropped and that he was awarded $25,000 in a settlement. Mr. Pratt claims that a jury trial was imminent but he chose to go this route instead.
Why then did Mr. Pratt settle for the small amount of $25,000, which likely was not enough to cover his legal fees, when all long he insisted on a jury trial? This entire case was very baffling to legal observers. The long delays stretching out for four years were inexplicable. The damages being sought were unknown.
If a trust-fund man who owns an expensive apartment felt that he was assaulted unfairly, and that he wanted revenge or to make a point, then he should have pursued the matter to the end, in a jury trial, one would think. Was the lawsuit not going his way after four years?
Mr. Pratt did not return our calls or emails. He moved away from BPC to California years ago.