Opinion
October 20, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ferraro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff was convicted of three counts of petit larceny following allegations by customers that he failed to return appliances left with him for repairs. His convictions were reversed on appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the Trial Judge's charge to the jury was erroneous. The District Attorney's motion to dismiss the case in the interest of justice was granted. The plaintiff then instituted this action for damages for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and violation of his civil rights.
We agree with Special Term that the plaintiff failed to present facts sufficient to establish a triable issue on any of his claims (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Furthermore, the acts specifically complained of were performed by officials who are immune from civil liability. The crux of the plaintiff's argument is that he was wrongly convicted and incarcerated because the Town Justice of the Town of New Windsor failed to properly instruct the jury on a potential defense under Lien Law § 180. The plaintiff also made allegations of misconduct by the Assistant District Attorney during the trial. However, judicial immunity extends to all Judges and encompasses all judicial acts, even if the acts are alleged to have been done maliciously (see, Sassower v Finnerty, 96 A.D.2d 585, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 756). Likewise, a District Attorney is immune from civil liability for official acts performed in the pursuit of a criminal prosecution (see, Whitmore v City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638, lv dismissed 54 N.Y.2d 753). The defendants' motion and cross motion for summary judgment were, therefore, properly granted. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.