The Honor able De nise Cote, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. 08-3389-c v Cogg ins v. County

of Na ssau U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER Ru lings by summary orde r do not hav e prece den tial ef f ect. Citatio n to a summary orde r f iled o n o r after Janu ary 1, 2007 , is permitted and is g overn ed by Federal R ule o f A ppe llate Proced ure 32. 1 a nd this c o u r t ’ s L o c a l R u l e 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W h e n c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r i n a d o c u me n t fi l e d wit h t his c ourt, a partymust cite eith er the F edera l Appen dixor an electron ic databa se (w ith the n otation “su mmary o r d e r ” ) . A p a r t y c i t i n g a s u mm a r y o r d e r mu s t s e r v e a c o p y o f i t o n a n y p a r t y n o t r e p r e s e n ted by co u n se l. At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, at 500 Pea rl Street, in the City

of Ne w York, on the 28 day

of January , two thousand ten. th Present: J OHN M. WAL KER, J R.,

ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges , DENI SE COTE, District Judge

. *

____________________________________________________________ DA RRY LT. CO GG I

NS, Plaintif

f-Appellee , - v - No. 08-3389-c v CRA I G B UO NO RA , Po lic e Of fi c e r, in h is i nd ivi du a l an d o f f i c i a l c a p a c i ty, Defendant- Cross-Clai mant-Appellant , COUNTY OF NASSAU, Defendant- Cross-Defendant , NASSAU COUNTY POL I CE DEPARTMENT,2

J AMES VARA, Police Off icer , in his indi vidual and of fi c ia l c a pa c ity and JOHNDO ES 1 -1 0, in t

he ir ind ivi du a l and off icial ca pacity , De

fe nd an ts .

____________________________________________________________ F or Pla int if f- Ap pe lle e : F RED ERI CK K. B R EW I NGTON (Scott A. Kore nbaum, on the brief ), He mpstead, N.Y. For Def endant- Cross-Claimant Ap pe lla nt: L AURENCE J EF F R EY W EI N G A RD , New Y ork, N.Y. Appea l from the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York (B ianco, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e a pp e a l is DISMISSE D in p art and the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED in p art . T he c a se is RE M AN DE D fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Def endant- cross-c laimant-appe llant CraigBuonor a appe als from a memorandum a

nd order of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w York ( Bia nco, J. ) date d Jun e 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , in s o f

ar a s it d e n ie d h is mo ti o nto d is mi s s an d mo ti o nf o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t. We assume the pa

rties’ fa miliarity with the underly

ing f acts a nd proce dural history

of this case

. Or din ari ly , th e re is n o f

ina l ju dg me nt whe re the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie s a mot ion to d ism iss

or a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. Ho we ve r, wh e re , a s h e re , th e a pp e a l of tho se de nia ls i s premised on the de fenda

nt’s entitlement to absolute immunit y , we have jurisdiction “to the extent that the re jection [of the absolute immunity defe nse] turned on an issue of la w.” Sh mu e li v . Ci ty of N e w York, 424 F.3d 231, 236 ( 2d Cir. 2005). B uo no ra a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to d ism iss , a

rguin gthat he is3

e nti tle d to a

bs olute immun ity

fr om c la ims ari sin gout of the pe rj ur e d te sti mony

he pr ov ide d to the g ra nd jur y in t he c ri min a l c a se a g a ins t pl a int if f- a pp e lle e Da

rr yl Co g g ins . In th is C ir c uit , ho we ve r, a

bs olute immun ity

do e s n ot e xten d to a lle g atio ns of c on sp ir a c y

to p re se nt f

a lse testimony

. See D ory v. Ry an , 2 5 F .3 d 8 1, 84 (2 d Ci r. 19 94 ); San Filippo v. U.S. Trust Co. of N

. Y. , 7 37 F .2 d 2 46 , 2 55 (2 d Ci r. 19 84 ). Al tho ug h B uo no ra a sk s th at w e ov e rr

ule the se prec edents, this panel is bound by those dec isions. See, e .g. , United States v. Frias , 521 F.3d 229, 232 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008). Ac cording ly , we a ffirm this aspec t of the district court’ s decision. Buonor a also c halleng es the district cour t’s decision that it could not determine, ba sed on the re c or d b e fo re it, wh e the r B uo no ra wa s a c omp la ini ngwi tne ss who wo uld no t be e nti tle d to

a bs olute immun ity . Abs e nt a mor e de ve lop e d r e c or d o f u nd isp ute d f

a c ts, we are un a

ble to deter mine as a matter of law

that Buonor a wa s not a complainingwitness. Consequently , we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue. See W hite v. Frank, 855 F.2d 956, 962 ( 2d Cir. 1988). We have c onsidered a ll of Buonor a’s r emainingarguments and find them to be without merit. Acc ording ly , insofar a s Buonor a cha lleng es the district cour t’s decision that it could not de te rm ine wh e the r B uo no ra wa s a c omp la ini ngwi tne ss, we la c k ju ri sd ic tio n, and

the a pp e a l is DI SM ISSED . A s to the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on that B uo no ra

is n ot e nti tle d to a

bs olute immun ity be c a us e of the e xtra -j ud ic ia l c on sp ir a c y e xce pti on , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is h e r e b y AF F IRM ED . We REMAND the c a se fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O' HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK