An accusation that a serving lieutenant once described himself as a neo-Nazi, led a violent attack on a Jewish teenager and concealed it to enter the police department demands a thorough, documented investigation.
The NYPD needs to answer a disturbing question: Did a man accused of leading an antisemitic group beating later secure a police career by hiding what he had done?
Mikhail Vinitsky alleges that Lieutenant Eric Sonnenberg led a brutal attack against him in Brooklyn’s Marine Park in 1995. Vinitsky, who is Jewish, further alleges that Sonnenberg described himself as a neo-Nazi during his high school years and repeatedly directed antisemitic abuse at him.
These accusations demand serious investigation. They concern alleged violence, alleged hatred and alleged dishonesty by someone who went on to hold police authority.
A threat, an antisemitic slur and an alleged group attack
According to Vinitsky, Sonnenberg approached him while a group was playing basketball and threatened, “I will drop you.” Vinitsky says Sonnenberg then called him a “fucking Jew.”
Vinitsky recounts going to a water fountain and, on his return, finding himself surrounded by Sonnenberg and about eight companions. He alleges that the group struck him from multiple directions, leaving him with two black eyes, a swollen face, bleeding from his mouth and cuts to his lips.
He says he came close to losing consciousness.
Even his attempt to escape allegedly failed to stop the attack immediately. Vinitsky says he ran while members of the group chased him and continued punching him.
If corroborated, that account describes a vicious assault accompanied by explicit antisemitic abuse.
The accusation of lying cannot be brushed aside
Vinitsky’s allegation goes beyond what happened in the park. He accuses Sonnenberg of concealing the attack to gain admission to the NYPD.
Honesty during recruitment is fundamental to fitness for police service. The NYPD warns applicants that deception or omission of relevant background information can lead to disqualification. Investigators must establish precisely what Sonnenberg was asked about past fights and criminal conduct, and whether his answers concealed the alleged antisemitic assault.
What disclosures did he make? What did background investigators examine? Did his statements accurately describe his past?
The hiring records have not been reviewed for this article, so it cannot establish that Sonnenberg lied. But the allegation is specific enough to demand examination of the application, interview records and background-investigation file.
If investigators establish that Sonnenberg deliberately concealed material information, the department should explain its findings and pursue whatever disciplinary action the evidence and applicable rules support.
Interview the witnesses. Examine the records. Explain the findings.
Vinitsky identifies Tavis Watson as a witness to the alleged attack and says Watson also later became an NYPD officer. Investigators should obtain Watson’s account and seek other people who were present. They should examine any surviving records and give Sonnenberg a full opportunity to respond.
Vinitsky says the Internal Affairs Bureau is investigating under Log No. 2026-26961, with Sergeant Christopher J. Foley assigned to the matter. That reported investigation has not been independently confirmed for this article. Vinitsky also says the offices of Jessica Tisch and Zohran Mamdani have been notified.
The NYPD should confirm what it can about the complaint and conduct a rigorous inquiry. A complaint number alone cannot answer whether the evidence has been fully examined.
The allegations remain unproven, and no response from Sonnenberg was obtained in preparing this article. Those limits make a fair investigation essential.
Proven hiring fraud should cost an officer the badge—and every pension benefit the law permits authorities to revoke.
If Sonnenberg led the alleged antisemitic group assault and deliberately concealed it when required to disclose it during recruitment, the NYPD should pursue his termination and every legally available avenue for pension forfeiture. Decades of service should provide no shelter from accountability for obtaining police authority through deception.
New Yorkers deserve a department willing to confront credible evidence of antisemitic violence and dishonesty within its ranks. Vinitsky’s accusations should be tested thoroughly—and any substantiated misconduct should bring accountability.
