WHITE PLAINS, NY (October 11, 2022) — Judge Susan Cacase has denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by New Rochelle Judge Matthew J, Costa in an Article 78 Complaint filed by Westchester County District Attorney Mimi Rocah who is seeking to prevent Judge Costa from enforcing his decisions to preclude evidence and testimony in a pair of drunk driving cases.
Why it matters: this “rarity” of a case will now move forward.
Timeline:
- The decision was filed on September 30, 2022 but unavailable until Tuesday because District Attorney Rocah opted out of the NYSCEF, the court electronic filing system.
- Costa has 30 days from the date of the Decision and Order, September 30, to serve any answer to the instant verified petition.
- Any reply to Costa’s answer must be served within fourteen days from the date of service of the respondent’s verified answer.
- Judge Cacace will file a decision within 60 days of the answer.
The papers read by Judge Cacace were published previously on Talk of the Sound:
Westchester DA Takes New Rochelle Judge to New York Supreme Court
- Order to Show Cause – Affirmation in Support
- Verified Petition – Affirmation – Exhibits – Memorandum of Law
- Notice of Motion – Affirmation – Exhibit
- Memorandum of Law in Support
- Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
- Reply Affirmation
- Memorandum of Law in Further Support
Go deeper: a detailed analysis of the case as of August 1, 2022.
In her September 30 decision, Judge Cacace summarized the arguments made by both sides. Her decision to deny the motion to dismiss is not indicative of how she will rule on the petition.
Deep Dive into the Cacase Decision and Order.
Legal Conclusions:
Based upon the foregoing, as the plain language of CPL 245.80(l)(a) authorizes a motion court to impose a sanction under only those circumstances where the parly entitled to the disclosure of discoverable matcrial shows that it was prejudiced (see CPL 245.80[1]la); see also People v Jateen,74 Misc.3d l34tAl), as the petitioner has alleged here that respondent Judge Costa lacked the authority he claimed to derive from CPL 245.S0(l) when he sanctioned the petitioner for the delayed disclosure of discovery by his issuance of challenged determinations #1 and #2 in spite of the absence of a showing of resultant prejudice by either respondent Molina or respondent Serrano, and as the petitioner has alleged that respondent Judge Costa was divested of the jurisdiction to impose such sanctions by undertaking such action in excess of the authority afforded to him by CPL 245.80(l ), this Court finds that the petitioner has satisfied her burden to raise factual allegations in support of the two causes of action for prohibition raised through the instant proceeding against respondent Judge Costa to overcome his present CPLR 3211(a)(7) challenge.
Based upon the foregoing, as this Court finds that the petitioner’s pleadings assert claims which successfully raise cognizable causes of action for prohibition through her pleadings against respondent Judge Costa pursuant to CPLR 7803(2), and therefore, respondent Judge Costa’s motion to dismiss this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) must be denied and this proceeding must be permitted to proceed, and therefore, respondent Judge Costa’s motion to dismiss the instant proceeding is hereby denied,