In Matter of Sharrow v. State of New York (216 AD2d 844 [3d Dept 1995], appeal denied 87 NY2d 801 [1995]) the Attorney General reversed its initial determination to provide two correction officers a defense under section 17 in a section 1983 action alleging that they beat an inmate, when a videotape revealed that the officers assaulted the inmate after any possible justification for the use of force had ended, and the beating had taken place without any resistance or provocation. The Court found that these circumstances presented the "unusual scenario of having the underlying facts so clear cut that reasonable minds could reach no other conclusion" but that the officers acted outside the scope of their employment (216 AD2d at 846.) The Court noted that the "undisputed evidence" established that there was no justification for the use of force, nor was there any resistance thereto, and therefore the officers' conduct was "a substantial departure from the essential correctional goal of maintaining order, discipline and control" (id.). Thus, "as a matter of law there was no possible factual or legal basis on which [the State] might eventually be held to be obligated to indemnify petitioners" (id.) Given these findings, the Third Department upheld the OAG's decision to decline to pay for the officers' defense.