Collins v. City of New York
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21199
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Collins spent over 16 years in state custody before a habeas writ ordered dismissal of the indictment and release (June 9, 2010).
- Plaintiffs sue NYPD officers Gerecitano and Hernandez, KCDA attorneys Maher, Bondor, Vecchione and others, and the City under §1983 and New York law.
- Allegations include coerced witness statements, false affidavits, illegal detentions, and suppression of exculpatory evidence used at trial.
- FOIL requests by Collins and responses by KCDA officers allegedly concealed exculpatory information related to Oliva, Santos, and Diaz.
- Post-conviction, Collins obtained habeas relief; Vecchione’s conduct was harshly criticized, while Hynes publicized Vecchione’s actions without disciplinary consequences.
- Plaintiffs assert municipal liability against the City for deliberate indifference and negligent hiring/training, and seek damages for state-law torts against individual defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for pretrial/coercive acts. | Vecchione/Maher/Bondor actions were not within advocacy functions. | Actions were prosecutorial and intimately tied to trial. | Vecchione, Maher, Bondor entitled to absolute immunity; FOIL defendants likewise protected for Brady-related duties. |
| Whether FOIL-related conduct can support §1983 claims when tied to Brady obligations. | FOIL responses concealed Brady material to Collins. | FOIL actions are administrative and not prosecutorial. | Brady/Giglio duties extend prosecutorially; FOIL defendants entitled to absolute immunity for Brady-related failures. |
| Whether Monell liability lies for deliberate indifference by City via Hynes and NYPD training. | Hynes ratified Vecchione; NYPD failed to train on Brady obligations. | Post-hoc evidence insufficient; no clear policy. | Hynes claim plausibly supports deliberate indifference; NYPD failure-to-train claim not plausibly proven at this stage. |
| Whether the City can be liable for state-law torts by its employees. | City liable for negligent hiring/training/supervision; some defendants lack immunity. | Immunity bars state-law claims against immune prosecutors; negligence may be viable if within scope. | Vecchione/Maher/Bondor immunized; negligent hiring/training claim against City survives against non-immune defendants; martial distinctions acknowledged. |
| Whether the City can be vicariously liable for torts when the responsible officer has absolute immunity. | City should bear liability for supervising misconduct. | Absolute immunity bars vicarious liability for those officers. | Vicarious liability precluded for immune officers; limited vicarious liability retained for remaining torts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutorial immunity defined by function in judiciary)
- Warney v. Monroe County, 587 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2009) (context matters; acts intimately tied to judicial process protected)
- Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial immunity depends on function; focus on advocate role)
- Taylor v. Kavanagh, 640 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1981) (illustrates protection for prosecutorial decisions and related actions)
- Kaly v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (Kalina; immunity for giving testimony and related acts)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (administrative duties tied to Brady/Giglio may still be protected)
- Steidl v. Fermon, 494 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2007) (Brady obligations; post-trial disclosure duties analyzed under prosecutorial framework)
- Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 1993) (witness/affidavit context and immunity relevance in collateral proceedings)
- Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1992) (limits on training claims; need for likelihood of wrong decision)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutorial duty to disclose favorable evidence to prosecutors)