Crews v. County of Nassau

• Decision Date: 23 March 2009
• Docket Number: No. 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(WDW).,06-CV-2610 (JFB)(WDW).
• Citation: 612 F.Supp.2d 199
• Parties: Raheem CREWS, Individually and as Parent of Shaheem Crews, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

612 F.Supp.2d 199

Raheem CREWS, Individually and as Parent of Shaheem Crews, Plaintiffs, v.COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Defendants.

No. 06-CV-2610 (JFB)(WDW).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 23, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Frederick K. Brewington and Valerie M. Cartright, Law Offices of Frederick K. Brewington, Hempstead, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Nancy Nicotra and Sondra M. Mendelson, Office of the Nassau County Attorney, Mineola, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:

PlaintiffRaheem Crews("Crews"), as an individual and as parent of Shaheem Crews (collectively, "plaintiffs"), brings this action against the County of Nassau(the "County"), County Police CommissionerJames H. Lawrence, County SheriffEdward Reilly, District AttorneyDennis Dillon, and several named and unnamed employees of the County, the County Police Department, the County Sheriffs Department and the District Attorney's Office (collectively, "defendants" or "County defendants"), alleging false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as various state law tort claims, all arising from the allegedly unlawful arrest, confinement, and prosecution of Crews.

Presently pending before the Court is defendants' motion to implead Arshad Majid("Majid") and his law firm, Majid & Associates, P.C., (collectively, "Majid and his firm"), pursuant to Rule 14(a) of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for leave to file a third-party complaint against them.Specifically, defendants seek to assert against Majid and his firm, Crews' former counsel who represented Crews during the underlying criminal proceeding, (1) a claim for negligence, based on a breach by Majid and his firm of their duty of care to the Nassau County District Attorney's Office ("DA's Office"), and (2) a claim for contribution, based on a breach by Majid and his firm of their duty of care to Crews.With respect to this third-party complaint, "[i]t is the County Defendants' position that Majid and his law firm were negligent in permitting multiple court adjournments a grand jury presentation to proceed without the benefit of his client's testimony or any documentary proof that Crews was incarcerated on the actual crime date, and an arraignment on indictment to go forward while being aware that his client was incarcerated on the actual crime date of March 26, 2005."Letter to the Court, dated March 24, 2008, at 1-2.Thus, the County defendants contend "that due to this negligence, Majid and his law firm are liable to the County Defendants for all of part of Plaintiffs claims against the County Defendants."Id. at 3.

For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is denied in its entirety.Specifically, although the Court recognizes that leave to implead should be freely granted to promote judicial efficiency, the motion is denied under the circumstances of the instant case.First, no negligence claim by the County defendants can exist against Majid or his law firm as a matter of law, because it is axiomatic that a criminal defense attorney owes no duty of care to prosecutors in a criminal case, given the adversarial relationship and the complete absence of privity or anything approaching privity between them.Second, although the Second Circuit has not decided whether a claim for contribution is available under Section 1983, this Court joins the majority of courts that have held that no such claim for contribution is available for Section 1983 claims.Finally, with respect to whether a contribution claim could exist under New York law against Majid and his firm in connection with the pendent state law torts being asserted against the County defendants, the Court concludes that, even assuming arguendo that such a contribution claim could exist on the pendent claims, impleading Majid and his firm to allow such a claim is unwarranted in this case because of the potential for substantial delay, confusion of issues, and potential prejudice to the plaintiffs that could result from the insertion of that contribution claim in this lawsuit.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Facts

The subject matter of the underlying case has been the focus of two prior opinions by the Court, familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of this motion.Only the relevant facts will be described briefly below.

According to the complaint, County police arrested Crews on May 27, 2005, and Crews was arraigned on a felony complaint of robbery in the first degree the following day.The felony complaint listed April 26, 2005 as the date of the alleged robbery, although the robbery actually occurred on March 26, 2005(hereinafter, the "March 26 robbery").Plaintiffs argue that defendants purposefully listed an inaccurate date in order to "intentionally, maliciously and/or recklessly misle[a]d" Crews and his criminal defense counsel, Majid.(Compl. ¶¶ 87 & passim.)

According to defendants, Assistant District Attorney("ADA")Kevin Higgins called Majid on July 15, 2005 and told him about the error in the dates.By contrast, plaintiffs assert that ADA Higgins first told Majid about the County's error on August 15, 2005.(Compl. ¶ 124.)Subsequently, according to plaintiffs, Majid contacted Crews' family later in the day on August 15, 2005 to determine Crews' whereabouts on the actual date of the robbery and discovered that Crews had been detained at a County correctional facility from March 20, 2005 to March 31, 2005.(Id.¶¶ 128, 134.)Plaintiffs allege that Majid called ADA Higgins on August 17, 2005 and told Higgins that Crews had been incarcerated at the time of the March 26 robbery, although Majid added that he had yet to confirm Crews' incarceration through documentary evidence.(Compl ¶ 135.)Plaintiffs also allege that, on September 22, 2005, Majid spoke with another ADA assigned to Crews' case, ADA Greg Madey, and again mentioned Crews' "alibi information" for the March 26 robbery.(Id.¶ 150.)

Defendants dispute that Majid provided this alibi information in mid-August 2005 and, instead, contend that the County was first notified of Crews' alibi on September 28, 2005.¹On that date, Majid submitted a notice of alibi to the state court.

Certain other facts relating to when and if Crews' alibi was relayed to defendants are not in dispute.First, it is undisputed that, by fax dated August 23, 2005, the County notified Majid that Crews' case would be submitted to the grand jury and offered Crews the opportunity to testify before the grand jury.Although Majid received the grand jury notice after the date upon which plaintiffs allege that Majid knew of Crews' alibi, Crews did not testify before the grand jury.(Compl. ¶¶ 141-42.)Subsequently, on September 8, 2005, the grand jury indicted Crews on charges of robbery in the second degree and robbery in the third degree.Second, it is undisputed that, on September 22, 2005, Crews was arraigned on the robbery charges in state court.Although the proceeding took place after the date upon which plaintiffs allege that Majid knew of Crews' alibi, Majid failed to inform the court that Crews had been incarcerated at the time of the March 26 robbery.

Crews was released from custody on September 29, 2005, the day after Majid submitted the notice of alibi to the Nassau County Court.The County dismissed the charges against Crews on October 17, 2005.

B.Procedural History

On May 25, 2006, plaintiffs filed the instant action.On September 5, 2006, the case was reassigned to the undersigned.On January 30, 2007, 2007 WL 316568, the Court disqualified Majid and his firm from representing plaintiffs.On December 27, 2007, 2007 WL 4591325, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

On May 2, 2008, defendants filed the instant motion.Plaintiffs submitted their opposition on June 6, 2008.Majid and his firm also submitted a response in opposition to defendants' motion on June 23, 2008, in which they also joined in the arguments set forth in plaintiffs' opposition papers.Defendants then submitted a reply on June 24, 2008.On June 27, 2008, plaintiffs further joined in the arguments set forth in Majid and his firm's opposition.The Court held oral argument on July 11, 2008.The parties submitted, at the request of the Court, further briefing on the issue of contribution with respect to the pendent state law claims, which was filed by the defendants and plaintiffs on July 25, 2008, and responded to by Majid and his firm on August 7, 2008.The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

The procedural mechanism for impleader is Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Rule 14(a) allows a defending party to implead a party"who is or may be liable to the third-partyplaintiff for all or part of the plaintiffs claim against the third-partyplaintiff."Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)."Rule 14 provides a procedural mechanism whereby a defendant can have derivative, contingent claims against others not originally parties to the action adjudicated contemporaneously with the claims against it: it does not create new substantive rights against those other parties."Shafarman v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.,100 F.R.D. 454, 458(S.D.N.Y.1984)(citation omitted)(emphasis in original)."The Second Circuit has stated that the purpose of Rule 14(a) is `to avoid two actions which should be tried together to save the time and cost of a re-duplication of evidence, to obtain consistent results from identical or similar evidence, and to do away with the serious handicap to a defendant of a time difference between a judgment against him and a judgment in his favor against the thirdparty defendant.'"Hicks v. Long Island R.R.,165 F.R.D. 377, 379(S.D.N.Y.1996)(quotingDery v. Wyer,265 F.2d 804, 806-07(2d Cir.1959));accordMueller v. Long Island...