Court Opinion

ID: 9786512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:57:15.077795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:46.008207
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
According to claimant’s theory of liability as stated in his verified bill of particulars, the acts of prosecutorial misconduct complained of were undertaken by the various employees of the State for the purpose of advancing their own personal interests. That being so, the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity and the legal principle that vicarious liability cannot be imposed upon the State as employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior in such circumstances preclude recovery against the State. (Imbler v Pachtman, 424 US 409; Sauter v New York Tribune, 305 NY 442, 444-445; accord Restatement, Agency 2d, § 235; see, also, Cornell v State of New York, 46 NY2d 1032; Johnson v Daily News, 34 NY2d 33; see, generally, Prosser, Law of Torts [4th ed], § 70, pp 464-466; 2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 26.9, pp 1391-1392.) Therefore, claimant’s action properly was dismissed.