Majority
Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by
The court also properly declined to dismiss the negligent hiring and retention claim. Although the claim may be dismissed upon a proper evidentiary showing that the officers were acting within the scope of their official duties (see Karoon v New York City Tr. Auth., 241 AD2d 323 [1st Dept 1997]), defendants failed to make such a showing (see e.g. Warrington v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455 , 456 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Pickering v State of New York, 30 AD3d 393 , 394 [2d Dept 2006]).
The motion court did not err in ordering that defendants produce, for in camera inspection, the subject officers’ personnel files, including any prior Civilian Complaint Review Board complaints made against them and any prior disciplinary actions taken against them. These records are discoverable, even if the officers are acting within the scope of their employment (see McFarlane v County of Suffolk, 79 AD3d 706 , 708 [2d Dept 2010]; Blanco v County of Suffolk, 51 AD3d 700 [2d Dept 2008]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Cases cited
- Johnson v. Kings County District Attorney's Office 308 AD2d 278 at 293-294 p. 615
- Karoon v. New York City Transit Authority 241 AD2d 323 p. 615
- Warrington v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. 35 AD3d 455 at 456 p. 615
- Pickering v. State 30 AD3d 393 at 394 p. 615
- Blanco v. County of Suffolk 51 AD3d 700 p. 615