WHITE PLAINS, NY (January 31, 2023) — Judge Susan Cacase has sided with Westchester County District Attorney Mimi Rocah in a highly unusual Article 78 Complaint against a sitting judge.
In her petition, Westchester County District Attorney Mimi Rocah sought to prevent New Rochelle Judge Matthew J. Costa from enforcing his decisions to preclude evidence and testimony in a pair of unrelated drunk driving cases (Molina and Serrano).
Why it matters: The DA challenged whether a person accused of a crime is entitled to all evidence on a timely basis as required under a new state law even if a delay in producing evidence does not prejudice the defendant’s case.
DECISION: Judge Matthew J. Costa, City Court Judge of the City of New Rochelle, is hereby prohibited from enforcing the determination he made to preclude the petitioner (Rocah) from introducing specified testimonial and documentary evidence during proceedings conducted in connection with the criminal prosecution of respondent Michael Molina in the City Court of the City of New Rochelle in the matter of People v Michael Molina under Docket No. CR-3495-21, and is further prohibited from enforcing the determination he made to preclude the petitioner from introducing specified testimonial and documentary evidence during proceedings conducted in connection with the criminal prosecution of respondent Gustavo Villamares Serrano in the City Court of the City of New Rochelle in the matter of People v Gustavo Villamares Serrano under Docket No. CR-5661-21
Case History:
Westchester DA Takes New Rochelle Judge to New York Supreme Court
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 Costa have the authority to make the decisions he made?
Cacase had previously denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by Costa in the Article 78: Attempt by New Rochelle Judge to Dismiss Westchester DA Complaint Denied
Cacase Decision and Order (9/30/22)
Cacase set a Motion schedule over the month of November 2022.
- 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)
Round II: Westchester County District Attorney Mimi Rocah v New Rochelle Judge Matthew J. Costa
Discussion/Legal Analysis
Cacace issued her decision on January 30, 2023. To support the conclusions in her 20-page Decision Judge Cacace provided a detailed discussion and legal analysis:
Judge Cacace found that it was appropriate for Rocah to file an Article 78 and her filing capable of being tried before her court.
Judge Cacace concluded that Rocah’s seeking a Writ of Prohibition was appropriate and capable of being tried before her court.
Judge Cacace found that not only were the two defendants (Molina and Serrano) not prejudiced because the District Attorney did not turn over discovery material within the required time frame under CPL 245 but neither made such a claim in their motions before Judge Costa.
Judge Cacace found that although Judge Costa “possessed and maintained subject matter jurisdiction over discovery issues arising in the respective Molina and Serrano matters at all times relevant to this action based upon his assignment to preside over these criminal proceedings in his capacity as a sitting Judge of the City Court of the City of New Rochelle”, he did not the have the authority to make the decisions he made because he showed “disregard of the absence of any claim or showing of prejudice resulting therefrom having been proffered by either respondent Molina or respondent Serrano.”
His decisions represented “impermissible, legally incorrect and otherwise unavailable action” and so Judge Costa acted “in excess of his lawful authority under the controlling jurisprudence and governing provisions of statutory law which constituted legal error causing prejudice to the petitioner of sufficient gravity to move persuade this Court to exercise its discretion to grant the instant petition for a writ of prohibition.”
Judge Costa sanctioned the DA by precluding much of their evidence to the case, evidence that was central to the DA being able to prove the drunk driving charges and as the drunk driving charges are the only charges the sanctions of preclusion effectively dismissed both cases.
Judge Cacace concluded Judge Costa’s “imposition of the sanction of preclusion against the petitioner for the delayed disclosure of discovery by his issuance of challenged determinations #1 and #2 in connection with the Molina and Serrano matters was improper, especially because neither Molina and Serrano claimed to have been prejudiced by any delay by the DA in producing discovery material.
Judge Cacace provides a detailed argument in support of her Decision which is beyond the scope of this article. Those readers interested to know more can find the entire argument with citations here:
We reached out to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office and New Rochelle City Court Judge Matthew J. Costa. The DA’s office replied “no comment”. Judge Costa replied “no comment at this time”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Robert Cox is the last remaining court reporter working in Westchester County. He attends court regularly to monitor progress on dozens of cases; that reporting is included in his weekly Court Reporters Notebook and is often the basis for stories on Talk of the Sound (like this one). To subscribe to his newsletter visit Words in Edgewise on Substack.