The complaint seeks damages for false arrest, wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, violation of constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983, and negligent hiring, training and supervision of police officers. Although plaintiff's affidavit denied involvement in a drug transaction, it did not deny the essential facts as to what the officer testified he had observed, or that plaintiff did possess the specified drug paraphernalia and a sum of cash. Inasmuch as the officer's observations established probable cause for arrest ( see Lui Yi v City of New York, 227 AD2d 453), defendant had a complete defense to the claims of false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution ( Batista v City of New York, 15 AD3d 304), notwithstanding the subsequent dismissal of the criminal charges ( Arzeno v Mack, 39 AD3d 341). The complaint fails to allege bad faith by the officers with respect to false arrest ( id. at 342), or actual malice with respect to malicious prosecution ( Jenkins v City of New York, 2 AD3d 291). The actions and statements of the District Attorney, whose office was nonetheless acting within the scope of its official duties ( Arzeno, 39 AD3d at 342), could not be imputed to the municipal defendant, an entirely different entity ( see Warner v City of New York, 57 AD3d 767, 768).
The claim asserted under 42 USC § 1983 must be dismissed for failure to allege that the challenged acts resulted from official municipal policy or custom ( Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 US 658, 690-691). And since the officers were acting within the scope of their employment, which plaintiff does not dispute, the claim of negligent hiring, training and supervision must also fail ( Ashley v City of New York, 7 AD3d 742).