"Big Bad" Traffic Cop Suing Councilman For Slander

Officer Dan Chu

"Big Bad Dan" Chu, the NYPD traffic cop who got in trouble for his terrible on-the-job behavior over the summer, intends to file a $2 million libel and slander lawsuit against the city and the Queens councilman who ratted him out. Chu claims Councilman Dan Halloran and his then-chief of staff Dennis Ring defamed him with "false reports" that he drove recklessly with police lights flashing while chatting on a cell phone. According to the Daily News, Chu is filing this lawsuit even though he admitted to those charges during an NYPD disciplinary hearing, where he was demoted to foot patrol.

Previously, Chu was called a "legend" for his bad behavior, which included yelling and cursing at a funeral mourners and being unnecessarily abusive with citizens. Councilman Hallorman, who had been given a ticket by Chu for 'blocking a crosswalk," called Chu a "nut job," and told the News that his lawsuit was, "unbelievable. He's got an idiot for a lawyer. The city of New York did an investigation and substantiated my claims...The amount of the claim is laughable and the basis of the claim is ridiculous."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Ben Yakas in News on November 5, 2010 6:11 PM

Comments [rss]

sjack

He's not a cop. He's a traffic agent.

Spirit of 76

You have to admit that suing after admitting to the "slanderous" charges takes a boatload of gall.

jaycjay

If in fact he did admit it. It was a departmental hearing, and the News says that some unidentified "source" says he said that behind those closed doors. Maybe it's true, maybe not... I'm not fully confident in the veracity of unidentified sources in general or of the Daily News specifically.

But in either case, so what? None of that will be admissible if this suit goes to trial.

Spirit of 76

I'd like to think that the mere fact that he was busted to foot patrol is tacit confirmation. He wouldn't have lost his vehicle if there was no wrongdoing on his part.

jaycjay

Perhaps it does provide confirmation that there was a finding in that hearing that he'd violated some policy. It's not at all, though, evidence that he "admitted" anything.