Court Rejects Plea for Special Prosecutor in Dismissed Bridgegate Case vs. Christie
The three-judge Appellate Division panel turned aside an appeal from retired Teaneck firefighter William Brennan, who had asked that a special prosecutor be appointed to review the case.
November 05, 2018 at 02:11 PM
4 minute read
A government watchdog who attempted to have former Gov. Chris Christie prosecuted for official misconduct in connection with the Bridgegate scandal has no standing to demand that a special prosecutor be appointed in the case, a New Jersey appeals court has ruled.
The three-judge Appellate Division panel in an unpublished opinion released Monday turned aside an appeal from retired Teaneck firefighter William Brennan, who had asked that a special prosecutor be appointed to review the case, in which a complaint filed by Brennan previously was dismissed.
“Other than as a possible witness, a citizen complainant has no further role in the criminal prosecution,” Appellate Division Judges Joseph Yannotti, Garry Rothstadt and Robert Gilson said. “There is no authority in this state for a court to appoint a special prosecutor under the circumstances here.”
Bergen County Assignment Judge Bonnie Mizdol ruled last March that Brennan failed to demonstrate that the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office was biased in Christie's favor when it dismissed the misconduct complaint.
Brennan claimed in the complaint that Christie knew about the politically motivated September 2013 George Washington Bridge lane closures while they were underway, but failed to take steps to end the scheme.
Brennan's attorney, Brick solo Donald Burke, said he was disappointed with the ruling.
“At a time when public trust in our government institutions has fallen to record lows, a judicial system that fails to hold powerful government officials accountable undermines the public's trust in the government,” Burke said, adding that the court should have appointed a prosecutor who is “not answerable to the governor” and “is free from the inherent conflict and self-interest of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office.”
He added that the appellate court “failed to appreciate that the judiciary has a duty to avoid the public perception of an appearance of impropriety. Creating hurdles to proper judicial oversight to avoid an appearance of impropriety, such as standing, undermines the integrity of the judicial system.”
Christie's attorney, Kevin Marino, took the opposite view.
“We are particularly pleased that, in addition to affirming the trial court's dismissal of Mr. Brennan's complaint, the Appellate Division roundly rejected the fanciful notion on which that complaint was based: that a citizen complainant can somehow arrogate the awesome power of the prosecutor and, into the bargain, disqualify that public official's entire office from performing their sworn function,” said Marino, of Marino, Tortorella & Boyle in Chatham.
The Attorney General's Office, which represented the state and the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, had no comment.
Brennan claimed the March 2 decision by John Higgins III, the first assistant Bergen County prosecutor, to not proceed with the prosecution lacked impartiality. Higgins took on the case after Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal—appointed by Christie to that post, and since appointed attorney general by current Gov. Phil Murphy—removed himself from the case. Mizdol rejected Brennan's claims and said Higgins' assertions that he could not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt was a valid reason to terminate the complaint.
Mizdol also rejected Brennan's bid to refer the case to a grand jury, finding he lacked standing to make that request because it was not pleaded in his initial petition or his appeal. Mizdol added that, even if the relief were not procedurally precluded, it would be substantively denied.
Higgins's termination of the complaint came after Roy McGeady, Bergen County's presiding judge of municipal court, ruled that probable cause existed to support the complaint but denied Brennan's bid for a special prosecutor. Brennan appealed the decision regarding the special prosecutor to Mizdol.
The appeals court agreed with the lower courts' rulings on Brennan's lack of standing.
“We conclude that such standing does not exist,” the Appellate Division judges said in the per curiam decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move and After Hours: Javerbaum Wurgaft; Sills Cummis; Spiro Harrison; CSG Law
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250