WHITE PLAINS, NY (December 11, 2022) — Both parties have completed motion practice in a highly unusual Article 78 Complaint filed by Westchester County District Attorney Mimi Rocah against New Rochelle Judge Matthew J. Costa to prevent Judge Costa from enforcing his decisions to preclude evidence and testimony in a pair of drunk driving cases.
Why it matters: The DA filing an Article 78 against a judge is an extraordinary legal maneuver. The request is particularly unusual in seeking a rare “writ of prohibition”. The DA is challenging whether a person accused of a crime is entitled to all evidence on a timely basis as required under CPL 245, a new state law; an argument that effectively renders moot the protections for defendants added in CPL 245 requiring prosecutors to turn over discovery material early on in any criminal proceedings.
Recent motion practice: On September 30, 2022, Judge Susan Cacase denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Judge Costa. On November 1, 2022, Judge Costa filed an Verified Answer to the original Article 78 complaint filed by DA Rocah along with a Memorandum of Law. In both documents, Costa simply reiterated arguments he made in his Motion to Dismiss. On November 16, District Attorney Rocah filed an Affirmation in Reply. She pointed out that in his Verified Answer, Judge Costa simply reiterated arguments he made in his Motion to Dismiss.
Cacase Decision and Order (9/30/22)
Verified Answer (filed by Costa 11/1/22)
Memorandum of Law (filed by Costa 11/1/22)
Affirmation in Reply (filed by Rocah 11/16/22)
There are no new facts or arguments in these recent filings. For a timeline, the facts of the Molina DWI Case and Serrano DWI Case as well as an explanation of an Article 78 and the law at the heart of the matter CPL 245 SEE Attempt by New Rochelle Judge to Dismiss Westchester DA Complaint Denied. To go deeper into the case, SEE a detailed analysis of the case as of August 1, 2022.
The central issues of the case:
- Is an Article 78 appropriate in this matter? Is it cognizable (capable of being tried before a particular court)?
- Is a Writ of Prohibition appropriate? Is it cognizable (capable of being tried before a particular court)?
- Were the two defendants prejudiced because the District Attorney did not turn over discovery material within the required time frame under CPL 245?
- Does Judge Costs have the authority to make the decisions he made?
EDITOR’S NOTE: This case was not filed electronically, so each piece of paper (1,000+ pages) was photographed on an iPhone then the images converted to PDF
Article 78 Westchester District Attorney Mimi Rocah v Judge Matthew Costa: Order to Show Cause
Article 78 Westchester District Attorney Mimi Rocah v Judge Matthew Costa: Motions and Responses
