Cunningham v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 61891,61891 |
| Parties | Patrick J. CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent. (Claim) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sweeney, Cunningham & Krieg, P. C., New York City (Marc S. Krieg, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany , for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J. P., and SWEENEY, KANE, MAIN and MIKOLL, JJ.
While the claim in question is somewhat unclear, from our reading and analysis, we are of the view that it seeks to allege causes of action for malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of constitutional rights. The claim is an outgrowth of the investigation by Deputy Attorney General Maurice Nadjari, resulting in four indictments against appellant, all of which were subsequently dismissed. One of the dismissals was based, in part, on the "pervasively and fundamentally unfair presentation" by the Deputy Attorney General, and another on the "shockingly improper and prejudicial manner in which this matter was presented to the Grand Jury".
The Court of Claims concluded that the prosecutor had absolute immunity for all actions and decisions he made as an advocate and, since the claim did not allege any actions or decisions outside the role of advocate, the claim had to be dismissed. The court, however, granted leave to replead to allege investigatory or administrative abuses. This appeal ensued.
A resolution of this controversy requires an examination of the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. The rule is a creature of public policy and has its roots in the common law. Traditionally and historically, a prosecutor has been afforded absolute immunity in initiating a prosecution and presenting the State's case. This position was recently reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court (Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128). Such immunity is a prerequisite to the orderly and fearless prosecution necessary for the proper functioning of the criminal justice system. A more qualified immunity would subject a prosecutor to possible civil action with obvious harmful results. While a wronged defendant would be without civil redress, such is subordinate to the broader public interest.
We must, therefore, examine the claim and attached exhibits to ascertain the specific actions of the prosecuting attorney for which appellant seeks redress. The alleged abuses include failure to properly instruct the Grand Jury on the law, introduction of inadmissible evidence, lack of an impartial attitude on the part of the prosecutor, lack of probable cause to bring the matter before the Grand Jury, overzealous cross-examination of witnesses, selective...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
V.S. ex rel. T.S. v. Muhammad, 07-cv-213(DLI)(JO).
...933 (4th Dep't 1995); Rodrigues v. City of New York, 193 A.D.2d 79, 87, 602 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1st Dep't 1993); Cunningham v. State, 71 A.D.2d 181, 183, 422 N.Y.S.2d 497 (2d Dep't 1979). Other appellate division cases have limited absolute immunity to the attorneys of child welfare agencies. See......
-
Poysa v. State
...324 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 272 N.E.2d 590, Cert. den. 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed.2d 789 (District Attorney); Cunningham v. State of New York, App.Div., 1979, 422 N.Y.S.2d 497 (Deputy Attorney General); Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, Affd. 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 94......
-
Santangelo v. State
... ... State of New York, 84 A.D.2d 876, 444 N.Y.S.2d 739); a school official in the determination to discharge an employee (Van Buskirk v. Bleiler, 46 A.D.2d 707, 360 N.Y.S.2d 88); a Deputy Attorney-General in the performance of his duties (Cunningham v. State of New York, 71 A.D.2d ... 181, 422 N.Y.S.2d 497); a building inspector in granting or denying building permits (Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249 N.Y.S.2d 330, affd 15 N.Y.2d 831, 257 N.Y.S.2d 944, 205 N.E.2d 866); a senior sanitary engineer of the state Department of ... ...
-
Kirchner v. Cnty. of Niagara
...Attorney's Off., 308 A.D.2d 278, 285, 763 N.Y.S.2d 635, quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. 984;see Cunningham v. State of New York, 71 A.D.2d 181, 182, 422 N.Y.S.2d 497). Thus, a prosecutor's conduct in preparing for those functions may be absolutely immune, but acts of investigation......