138 A.D.3d 1468
N.Y. App. Div.2016Background
- Plaintiff sued county and city defendants alleging malicious prosecution and other claims after criminal charges were brought against him.
- Supreme Court (Cayuga County) granted summary judgment dismissing malicious prosecution claims against Cayuga County District Attorney’s Office and County of Cayuga, but denied dismissal as to Auburn Police Department and City of Auburn.
- County defendants moved for dismissal based on prosecutorial (absolute) immunity.
- City defendants moved for dismissal arguing police had probable cause to charge plaintiff with second-degree assault.
- Evidence establishing probable cause included sworn statements from the victim and the victim’s brother-in-law, a sworn statement by plaintiff, and police investigative findings.
- Appellate court modified the order to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim in its entirety as to all defendants and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county prosecutors are immune from malicious prosecution claim | Prosecutor conduct exceeded protected evaluative functions and required only qualified immunity | Prosecutors’ actions were part of initiating/presenting prosecution and thus absolutely immune | County defendants entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether city (police) defendants lacked probable cause for arrest/prosecution | Plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause and asserted wrongful prosecution | Police had probable cause based on victim statements, plaintiff’s statement, and investigation; warrant issued | Probable cause existed; malicious prosecution claim against city defendants dismissed |
| Whether sworn victim statements and warrant create presumption of probable cause | Plaintiff argued presumption overcome by facts here | Defendants argued no fraud, perjury, or withholding of evidence to rebut presumption | Presumption of probable cause from warrant stands; plaintiff did not show fraud/perjury/withholding |
| Standard of immunity for prosecutors in investigative vs. prosecutorial roles | Plaintiff contended prosecutor acted investigatively (qualified immunity) | Defendants asserted actions were prosecutorial (absolute immunity) | Court applied Imbler/Buckley: absolute immunity for judicial-phase/prosecutorial acts; qualified immunity not triggered |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for initiating and presenting the State’s case)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishes prosecutorial absolute immunity from qualified immunity when acting investigatively)
- Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 (1980) (summary judgment standard in New York)
- Zetes v. Stephens, 108 A.D.3d 1014 (2013) (probable cause standard for malicious prosecution)
- Lyman v. Town of Amherst, 74 A.D.3d 1842 (2010) (citizen accusations can provide probable cause; presumption from warrant)
- Broughton v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (1975) (warrant issued creates presumption of probable cause for arrest and prosecution)
- De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26 N.Y.3d 742 (2016) (probable cause requires reasonable belief of offense, not proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78 (1983) (defining probable cause in malicious prosecution context)
- Chase v. Town of Camillus, 247 A.D.2d 851 (1998) (presumption of probable cause from court-issued warrant)
- Kirchner v. County of Niagara, 107 A.D.3d 1620 (2013) (application of prosecutorial immunity principles in NY)