107 A.D.3d 1620
N.Y. App. Div.2013Background
- Plaintiff's seven-month-old daughter died after a fall; initial police investigation concluded the death was accidental and the case was closed.
- Dr. James J. Woytash (Erie County Chief Medical Examiner, services through University at Buffalo Pathologists/Erie County) performed an autopsy, reported findings, and testified to a grand jury; he ultimately listed cause of death as undetermined.
- Plaintiff alleges Woytash fabricated scientifically unsupported findings about time/cause of injury after conversations with ADA Claudette Caldwell (Niagara County), which were passed to police and the grand jury.
- Caldwell initially recommended closing the case but, after contact from plaintiff’s estranged wife, allegedly encouraged Woytash to provide false information and pursued charges.
- Plaintiff was indicted for homicide and manslaughter; indictment was later dismissed after plaintiff’s expert challenged grand jury testimony, and plaintiff brought this malicious prosecution suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County of Erie (via Woytash) can be sued for malicious prosecution | Woytash, as Erie employee, actively participated by supplying false findings and testimony, thus commenced/continued prosecution | County argues it did not commence or continue the Niagara prosecution and raises that argument on appeal | Complaint sufficiently alleges Erie (through Woytash) played active role; pleading survives dismissal |
| Whether indictment precludes malicious prosecution absent proof of fraud/perjury/suppression | Plaintiff: indictment resulted from fraud/perjury and bad-faith police/prosecutorial conduct | Defs: grand jury indictment creates presumption of probable cause, barring claim | Complaint alleges fraud/perjury/bad faith (fabricated findings, coached testimony), so pleading overcomes presumption |
| Whether Caldwell and County of Niagara have prosecutorial absolute immunity | Plaintiff: Caldwell acted investigatively (coached Woytash) not as judicial advocate; thus no absolute immunity | Caldwell/Niagara: Caldwell was evaluating evidence and is absolutely immune | Court: alleged conduct was investigative (coaching, initiating charges) — not protected by absolute immunity; qualified immunity defeated by alleged bad faith |
| Whether governmental immunity or need to allege special duty bars claim | Plaintiff: malicious prosecution claim does not require special municipal duty; alleged conduct was outside discretionary protection | Defendants: discretionary duties of ME/ADA invoke governmental immunity and/or plaintiff must allege special duty | Court: special-duty rule in negligence claims not required for malicious prosecution; alleged fabrications/coaching were not discretionary acts and thus not covered by governmental immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantalino v. Danner, 96 NY2d 391 (defines malicious prosecution elements)
- Colon v. City of New York, 60 NY2d 78 (indictment creates presumption of probable cause; fraud/perjury/suppression exception)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (prosecutorial absolute vs. qualified immunity for investigative acts)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute immunity for advocacy functions of prosecutors)
- Mon v. City of New York, 78 NY2d 309 (governmental immunity: discretionary vs. ministerial acts)
- Tango v. Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34 (discretionary acts involve reasoned judgment; ministerial acts do not)
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (pleading standard: accept alleged facts and favorable inferences)
- Valdez v. City of New York, 18 NY3d 69 (special duty requirement applies to municipal negligence claims)
- Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 (qualified immunity defeated by bad faith allegations)