In Haddock v. City of New York, 75 NY2d 478, 484, 553 N.E.2d 987, 554 N.Y.S.2d 439 [1990], a child was raped on a city playground by a city employee with a history of violent crime who worked at the playground. The Court noted that the City was aware of the employee's criminal record months before the sexual assault, yet there was no indication that before the attack the City made any effort to comply with its own procedures regarding employees with criminal records, and "no indication that it made a judgment of any sort" when it learned of the employee's criminal past, such as whether his criminal record should affect his work assignment or whether he should be retained at the playground (Haddock v. City of New York, supra at 485). In holding that the City was afforded no immunity from liability, the Court stated that "the immunity afforded a governmental entity presupposes an exercise of discretion in compliance with its own procedures. Indeed, the very basis for the value judgment supporting immunity and denying individual recovery for injury becomes irrelevant where the governmental entity violates its own internal rules and policies and exercises no judgment or discretion" (id.)