We reject petitioner's argument that respondent Corporation Counsel has no authority to make a determination, separate and apart and in the absence of any determination by petitioner's employer, the Police Department, that petitioner had violated certain Police Department rules and regulations, and is therefore not entitled to a defense by the Corporation Counsel, under General Municipal Law § 50-k (2), in the civil action brought against him for allegedly having failed to intervene in an assault against the plaintiff therein by petitioner's partner ( see, Matter of Williams v. City of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 800; Blood v. Board of Educ., 121 A.D.2d 128, 130). Recognizing such authority, the Corporation Counsel's determination that petitioner did not testify truthfully at the criminal trial of his partner, and is therefore not entitled to a defense in this action, has ample support in the transcript of the criminal trial. We also agree with the IAS Court that so much of the petition as seeks indemnification is premature until a judgment is entered or settlement reached in the underlying action (General Municipal Law § 50-k), and should be dismissed without prejudice.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.