Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers NYSCEF Numbered Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 27-35 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 38-42 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 43 Other 44 DECISION, ORDER AND JUDGMENT Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument, in this action to recover damages for discrimination, defendant City of New York (the “City”), together with defendants Assistant Deputy Commissioner-Trials Joshua Klineman (incorrectly sued herein as Josh Klineman) (“Hearing Officer Klineman”), Sergeant Peter Guido (“Guido”), Lieutenant Dane Varriano (“Varriano”), and Sergeant Silvia Sandseth (“Sandseth”), in each instance, individually (collectively with the City, “defendants”), jointly move, pre-answer, for an order, pursuant to (among other statutory provisions) CPLR §§3211 (a)(5) and (7), dismissing the entirety of the eleven-count amended complaint, dated January 24, 2023 (the “Amended Complaint” or “AC”). Plaintiff Steven LaFortune (“plaintiff”), while opposing defendants’ motion, does not object to the dismissal of the entirety of Counts IX, X, and XI of his Amended Complaint as against defendants Guido, Varriano, and Sandseth (collectively, the “officer defendants”).1 Thus, the Court shall only consider the viability of Counts I through VIII of the Amended Complaint. Background In the evening of July 3, 2019, plaintiff, then an off-duty 18-year NYPD veteran, was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife in their family residence in Staten Island, New York (the “underlying incident”). In the course of the underlying incident, plaintiff displayed his service weapon initially to his wife, and subsequently to his then 15-year-old son. No one was physically hurt in the underlying incident. Later the same evening (or in the early morning of the following day), plaintiff was taken by EMS to a medical facility where he was hospitalized for two days. Meanwhile, the officer defendants took statements from plaintiff’s wife at a nearby NYPD precinct regarding the underlying incident (collectively, the “post-incident interview”). On release from the medical facility and after his ensuing month-long suspension was over, plaintiff returned to the NYPD where he was charged with three separate misdemeanors in connection with the underlying incident: (1) Menacing in the Third Degree (Penal Law §120.15); (2) Endangering the Welfare of a Minor (Penal Law §260.10); and (3) Harassment either in the First or Second Degree (Penal Law §240.25 or §240.26, respectively). AC,
94, 113. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was arraigned before a criminal court judge and released on his own recognizance. AC,
