Opinion
May 13, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.).
Order entered June 11, 1984 affirmed, insofar as reviewed.
Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
Defendant County of Westchester's motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Whether or not the county could be found vicariously liable for the tortious acts allegedly committed by the District Attorney's office, these acts were quasi-judicial in nature. As such, the Assistant District Attorney here is entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit for the discretionary actions taken within the ambit of his official duties ( see, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409; Minicozzi v. City of Glen Cove, 97 A.D.2d 815; Brenner v. County of Rockland, 67 A.D.2d 901, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 705). It is clear from the allegations of the complaint that the acts complained of were not investigative in nature, but were committed in the furtherance of a criminal prosecution. Since the Assistant District Attorney is not subject to suit, neither is the County of Westchester. In reaching this conclusion, we do not pass upon the propriety of Special Term's finding that the county and the District Attorney's office are united in interest. O'Connor, J.P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.