Court Opinion

ID: 9786513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:57:15.08047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:46.008744
License: Public Domain

Fuchsberg, J.
(concurring). Aside from the pleaded acts of prosecutorial misconduct to which the majority confines itself, claimant’s allegations of aggrievement, not without support in the record, may also be said to spell out a charge that the accusations which were made against him not only were baseless but hardly free from political motivation. But, assuming these conflicted with the Code of Professional Responsibility (DR7-103; EC7-14; see, also, EC7-13) or could be thought to justify action to vindicate the victim’s reputation (cf. United States v Modica, 663 F2d *5631173, 1185), it seems settled that these too could not support an action against the sovereign in this State (see Rao v State of New York, 74 AD2d 964, mot for lv to app den 50 NY2d 803, cert den 449 US 982; Cunningham v State, 71 AD2d 181).
Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler concur; Judge Fuchsberg concurs in a separate memorandum; Chief Judge Cooke and Judge Meyer taking no part. Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.