Samuel Kellner v. The City of New York and Patricia L. Hynes, Administrator of the Estate of Charles J. Hynes

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Samuel Kellner’s action alleging malicious prosecution and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Monell claim against the City of New York. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed and that, depending on a jury’s findings, former Kings County District Attorney Charles J. Hynes might not be entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. The claims arose from an investigation and prosecution of Kellner following allegations that he attempted to extort the family of Baruch Lebovits.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was denied because the record contained sufficient circumstantial and potential direct evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Hynes conspired with KCDA officials, the Lebovits family, and the Lebovits legal team to manufacture evidence and maliciously prosecute Kellner.
2. On the facts viewed in Kellner's favor, Hynes was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for alleged investigative conduct undertaken before indictment or for statements to the media.
3. On the facts viewed in Kellner's favor, Hynes was not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.
4. The City was not entitled to summary judgment merely because defendants argued that the claims against Hynes failed; the court allowed the municipal-liability claim to proceed in light of the unresolved factual and legal issues concerning Hynes's conduct and policymaking role.

Questions Presented

1. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Kellner's § 1983 conspiracy claim.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Kellner's § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim.
3. Whether the alleged investigative and media conduct by District Attorney Hynes was outside the advocacy function protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity.
4. Whether Hynes was entitled to qualified immunity on the facts viewed in Kellner's favor.
5. Whether the City of New York was entitled to summary judgment on Kellner's Monell municipal-liability claim.

Disposition

other