The failure of a Queens prosecutor and a police officer to tell a grand jury convened in a robbery case about problems with a key witness' identification testimony could create the impression of collusion between the two to mislead the jury, a federal judge found.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York denied New York City's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a malicious prosecution suit filed by Maxie DaCosta seeking compensation from an officer of the New York City Police Department.

DaCosta was charged with first- and second-degree robbery for his role in a 2007 holdup at a sporting goods store, but whose charges were dismissed in 2012 after it was revealed that police possessed a videotape showing that DaCosta was not the person who committed the robbery.

According to Weinstein's opinion, NYPD Detective Fortunato Tranchina testified that one of the three eyewitnesses to the robbery picked DaCosta out of a lineup. That eyewitness, who was a victim of the robbery, saw a wanted poster for DaCosta on TV months after the robbery for unrelated homicide and escape charges.

But the detective neglected to tell a grand jury in 2008 that the other two eyewitnesses did not identify DaCosta as the perpetrator of the crime and the grand jury was not shown the videotape.

Weinstein said that a jury in a civil rights case could conclude that there was collusion between the detective and the prosecutor at the grand jury proceedings to mislead grand jurors.

Earlier in the case, Weinstein granted a relation back for DaCosta to beat the statute of limitations because New York City's Corporation Counsel failed to inform DaCosta in a timely manner that he had filed suit against the wrong police officer.

DaCosta's defense team includes Kim Richman, Clark Binkley and Javier Hidalgo of the Richman Law Group.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Kavin Thadani and Daniel Saavedra are representing Tranchina. A spokesman for the city's Law Department said the city has asked the court to reconsider the order that the city be required to inform the plaintiff that the wrong officer was named as a defendant.