A Queens resident alleges that he was wrongfully prosecuted as a criminal defendant after being the victim of a violent assault outside a local gym, according to a new federal civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed by Hilary Best on May 12, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, names the City of New York, multiple police officers, and Blink Fitness (now PureGym) as defendants.
According to court documents, Hilary Best claims that on September 17, 2023, he was violently assaulted outside Blink Fitness and CityMD near 130-20 Farmers Boulevard in Queens. The filing states that Best suffered significant physical injuries including bleeding scalp lacerations, shoulder injuries, bruising, and other trauma requiring emergency medical treatment. He asserts that a female employee of Blink Fitness coordinated with the male assailant who attacked him with a hammer-like object.
Best alleges that despite providing information about the assault to law enforcement—including repeated requests for police to investigate and arrest the actual perpetrators—he was instead charged with stalking and harassment offenses under Queens Criminal Court Docket No. CR-029145-23QN. The complaint states: “Despite the existence of physical injuries, medical evidence, surveillance evidence, investigative overlap, and exculpatory information, Defendants reversed Plaintiff's status from assault victim to criminal defendant.”
The lawsuit details how Detective Alicia Commisso acknowledged receiving and reviewing surveillance video from CityMD which allegedly showed Best being assaulted before both assailant and employee left together in a white BMW. Despite this evidence and documented injuries—including photographs taken at Jamaica Hospital—Best says he was subjected to repeated court appearances, pretrial restrictions, reporting requirements to the Criminal Justice Agency, emotional distress, reputational harm, financial loss, and prolonged constitutional injury.
Throughout his prosecution—which began after his October 3rd arrest—Best contends there were ongoing disputes over discovery materials such as surveillance footage and medical records. He claims exculpatory evidence was omitted or concealed by defendants: “Defendants ignored materially exculpatory information and evidence supporting Plaintiff's victim status.”
The criminal case against Best ultimately ended in his favor on March 23, 2026 when all charges were dismissed with prejudice by Queens Criminal Court. According to official records attached to the filing—including a Certificate of Disposition—the dismissal referenced constitutional concerns as well as discovery violations and facial insufficiency.
In his federal complaint brought under Section 1983 of Title 42 of U.S.C., Best alleges causes of action including false arrest; malicious prosecution; denial of fair trial; unreasonable seizure; failure to investigate exculpatory evidence; Monell liability against municipal policy or practice; state-law false arrest; state-law false imprisonment; state-law malicious prosecution; negligence/gross negligence; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Best seeks substantial relief from the court: compensatory damages totaling $250 million dollars; punitive damages also totaling $250 million dollars; costs and disbursements; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; along with any further relief deemed just by the court. The complaint demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right.
Hilary Best is representing himself pro se in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-02853.
Source: 126cv02853_Best_v_City_of_New_York_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf