Rafiy v. The County of Nassau, 2:15-cv-06497

In Oct. 2011 the NYS Workers’ Compensation OIG referred Dr. Philip Rafiy to the Nassau County DA’s Office on suspected double-billing; the DA’s Economic Crimes Bureau investigated for ~17 months.
ADA Weiss supervised the investigation; Investigator Walsh reviewed billing records and interviewed patients and Rafiy; an arrest memo led to a 13‑count felony complaint and Rafiy was arrested and detained for one day (Apr. 18, 2013).
A grand jury returned an indictment (Nov. 2013); Rafiy was acquitted of all charges at trial (Nov. 13, 2014).
Plaintiff alleges the DA’s Office and National Government Services (NGS) conspired to present altered/incomplete evidence to deprive him of constitutional rights; the DA’s Office disputes Piazza’s factual/causation allegations and shows meetings with defense counsel and production of materials.
Disputed but admissible evidence: certain refund checks appear backdated (postmarks after subpoena); Walsh allegedly made coercive comments to witnesses (disputed).
Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown recommends summary judgment for the County Defendants on federal claims (Monell, §1983/§1985 theories, individual claims) and recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Monell municipal liability	County liable for customs/policies that allowed unconstitutional prosecution	No municipal policy/custom or policymaker action alleged; single-prosecution conduct insufficient	Summary judgment for County; no viable Monell claim
Official-capacity claims (DA office, DA, ADAs, investigator)	Suits against DA/office proper	DA Office is an administrative arm; prosecutorial acts represent the State and are Eleventh Amendment–barred	Official-capacity federal claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; dismiss official-capacity claims
Individual liability for former DA Kathleen Rice	Rice responsible for prosecutors’ actions; Monell-style supervisory liability	No admissible evidence of Rice’s personal involvement in investigation/prosecution	Summary judgment for Rice on individual §1983 claims for lack of personal involvement
Prosecutorial/investigative immunity & Brady/exculpatory disclosure	County defendants failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and investigator’s conduct coerced witnesses, violating constitutional rights	Prosecutors’ actions were prosecutorial (absolute immunity); no proof of Brady violation; qualified immunity protects officials if no clearly established right shown	Absolute/qualified immunity preclude individual federal liability; plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or a clearly established right

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing constitutional harm)
Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1992) (municipal liability inquiry and deliberate indifference standard in pattern-of-misconduct cases)
Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York, 996 F.2d 522 (2d Cir. 1993) (when prosecutors act in prosecution role they represent the State, not the county)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity two‑step framework and district court discretion on sequencing)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (initial formulation of qualified immunity analysis)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity requires first showing a constitutional violation)
Winfield v. Trottier, 710 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary of qualified immunity/clearly established law inquiry)
DeCarlo v. Fry, 141 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1998) (single incident by non‑policymakers generally insufficient to establish municipal policy)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (U.S. 1986) (negligent acts by state officials do not constitute a due process violation)