its trustworthiness and renders it inadmissible”); compare Gentile v. County of Suffolk, 129 F.R.D. 435 (E.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 926 F.2d 142 (2d Cir.1991) (admitting same SIC Report when issued on eve of trial). Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a claim under Colon against the Supervisory Defendants. The Motion to Dismiss the State Law Claims Against the Supervisory Defendants is Denied According to the Supervisory Defendants, New York law bars lawsuits against prison employees in their personal capacity for damages arising out of “any act done or the failure to perform any act within the scope of the employment and in the discharge of the duties by such officer or employee.” N.Y. Correct. Law § 24 (McKinney’s 2010). See Baker v. Coughlin, 77 F.3d 12, 14-15 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Supervisory Defendants also contend that
holding that even though  24 only refers to actions in state court it applies to state claims brought in federal court holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding state immune from suit brought in state court