Posted April 10, 2019 08:13:07A former NYPD detective who claimed he was being falsely accused by a former cop in a sexual harassment case is fighting a court order to suppress evidence that could be used against him.
Michael D. DiFonzo, 52, who was fired by the NYPD in 2015 after he was accused of having an affair with a detective, claims the case was a sham because he was the subject of a sex crime allegation.
He claims he was never interviewed by the detective, who he said was a police officer who had previously worked for the NYPD.
“It is an absolute travesty that the court ordered a suppression order, without even a reasonable basis, in the case of a former NYPD officer,” DiFoffzo said in a statement.
“It is not in the public interest to be complicit in a criminal investigation.
The NYPD and its agents, who have long been accused of corruption and wrongdoing, are the ones guilty of the crime of perjury, and the court must be held to account for their actions.”
DiFonzano sued the city of New York on Monday in Manhattan federal court.
He claimed his former police department violated his First Amendment rights by not allowing him to present evidence that he was fired and falsely accused of sexual harassment.
DiFozo was fired in 2015, two years after the case against him was filed by a detective.
DiFiZano said the detective made false accusations of sexual misconduct and had been “an accessory to the false and reckless conduct” that resulted in his dismissal.
He alleged that after his dismissal, he was “forced to withdraw from the criminal justice system” by the New York City Board of Police Commissioners and that he had to take time off to recover from a brain injury suffered in the line of duty.
DiFiZo is suing the city and three officers in a civil lawsuit alleging the city is illegally suppressing his testimony and depriving him of his civil rights.
The officers have also filed a defamation suit against DiFoZo.
Di Fonzo was placed on leave last year after his firing.
A court filing on Monday said the city “failed to provide reasonable notice to DiFlozano of the possibility that he would be called upon to testify against the officers” and that “the City failed to follow proper procedure in the preparation of DiFoppo’s deposition testimony.”
The city also failed to inform DiFonzaro that he could file a motion for a protective order in his case, the filing said.
Di Fi Zano also claims the city withheld information from him on his deposition.
Di Fi Zoans attorney, Robert S. Siegel, said the court has no reason to interfere in DiFons case because he is a whistleblower.
“We have been waiting for more than a year for this, for the judge to act, and he has refused,” Siegel said.
“I think it’s a clear violation of the right to remain silent and to not be a witness in a case of this magnitude.
We are not seeking any damages.
The case is really not about damages at all.”