Golden v. City of New York

Background

Warren Golden, an NYPD detective, sued New York County District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys Nicholas Viorst and Jana Loeb (the “DA Defendants”), the City of New York, and NYPD Lieutenant Shaun Tanner. The case arose from a September 3, 2022 incident at the Electric Zoo Music Festival. Golden alleged that two other NYPD detectives took champagne bottles from a VIP table, while he observed the conduct but did not participate in it. He alleged that he later encouraged the detectives to return the bottles.

A grand jury indicted the two other detectives for grand larceny and Golden, along with the other detectives, for official misconduct. Golden was arrested and arraigned on May 15, 2023. He alleged that the prosecutors lacked evidence, ignored the requirements of New York Penal Law § 195.00(2), permitted perjured testimony before the grand jury, and prosecuted him for improper reasons. The charge against Golden was later dismissed. Golden also challenged a District Attorney’s Office press release that said the three defendants were indicted for their roles in the champagne theft. He alleged that the release falsely associated him with stealing the champagne and caused reputational and economic harm.

Golden asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution, state-law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and gross negligence, and claims seeking to hold the City responsible for the defendants’ conduct. The DA Defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Official-capacity claims

Judge Stein concluded that the DA Defendants’ prosecution-related actions were taken as prosecutors acting for the State of New York. As a result, the Eleventh Amendment barred Golden’s claims against them in their official capacities. The court also stated that any official-capacity claims based on the press release would be duplicative of Golden’s claims against the City because an official-capacity suit is effectively a suit against the government entity.

Individual-capacity claims and prosecutorial immunity

The court held that absolute prosecutorial immunity protected the DA Defendants from claims based on initiating and pursuing Golden’s prosecution, deciding to present the case to the grand jury, and allegedly allowing perjured testimony. Absolute immunity protects prosecutors from damages claims for actions performed as advocates for the government, even when a plaintiff alleges improper motives, malice, or lack of evidence. Golden did not allege facts showing that the prosecutors acted without any colorable legal authority or without even an apparent basis for prosecuting him.

The court distinguished statements to the press from prosecution-related advocacy. It explained that statements to the press generally receive qualified immunity, rather than absolute prosecutorial immunity. Qualified immunity protects officials from damages unless the plaintiff shows a violation of a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court nevertheless concluded that Golden’s federal claims were not based on the press release itself: his federal claims concerned an allegedly unlawful arrest and prosecution, not defamation. The court further concluded that the press release did not violate a clearly established federal right.

For the state-law claims that might rely on the press release, the court concluded that New York’s absolute privilege for certain official communications protected the DA Defendants. It also concluded that New York Civil Rights Law § 74 protected the release as a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding. Reading the release as a whole, the court determined that it made clear that the other two detectives were accused of stealing the champagne, while Golden was accused of failing to intervene.

Other issues and disposition

The court declined to address the sufficiency of Golden’s Monell claim against the City on its own initiative because the DA Defendants raised that issue only in a footnote and it had not been fully briefed. It also declined to dismiss the state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction because federal claims against the City and Tanner remained pending and arose from the same underlying events. The court did not reach the DA Defendants’ remaining arguments concerning personal involvement or the elements of Golden’s causes of action.

Judge Stein recommended that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan grant the DA Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Thus, the recommendation was to dismiss all claims against the DA Defendants in both their official and individual capacities, while allowing Golden an opportunity to replead. The opinion is a report and recommendation, and the text provided does not state whether Judge Kaplan adopted it.