Rosen & Bardunias v. County of Westchester
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*680Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the first seven causes of action in action number 2. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ allegations that Assistant District Attorney Willcox was motivated by malice and was less than forthright in his prosecution of the criminal charges for which the plaintiffs were ultimately exonerated, the defendants are absolutely immune from civil liability for exercising this prosecutorial function (see, Imbler v Pachtman, 424 US 409; Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 216; Ryan v State of New York, 81 AD2d 947, affd 56…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Sharapata v. Town of IslipNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
- Arteaga v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Whitmore v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
- Cunningham v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Claude H. v. County of OneidaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Ellison v. City of New RochelleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Palmer v. Society for Seamen's ChildrenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Zimmer v. Town of BrookhavenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Bowles v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.