State Supreme Court Will Clarify Indemnification for County Prosecutors
The court will consider whether a prosecutor's office and and three assistant prosecutors are entitled to a defense from the state pursuant to a 2001 Supreme Court decision in Wright v. State.
November 07, 2019 at 12:48 PM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the state attorney general is obligated to defend and indemnify the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office in a lawsuit involving a woman murdered by her ex-husband, a police officer.
The court will consider whether the prosecutor's office, Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni and three assistant prosecutors are entitled to a defense from the state pursuant to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Wright v. State. In that case, the court said the state was found to be obligated to indemnify the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office in a wrongful arrest lawsuit.
The justices' decision to take the case, made public Nov. 4, follows an Appellate Division ruling issued in June that affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the attorney general's office concerning indemnification. The attorney general issued a decision in 2017 that said it would defend and indemnify what it termed "classic" law enforcement activities but not administrative functions.
The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Gramiccioni and assistant prosecutors Gregory Schweers, Jacquelyn Seely and Richard Incremona are defendants in a suit filed in U.S. District Court by the estate of Tamara Wilson-Seidle, who was shot to death in 2015 by her ex-husband, Philip Seidle, a Neptune township police officer. The suit claims the prosecutor's office, Gramiccioni and the assistant prosecutors failed to protect Wilson-Seidle from her husband and should not have returned Seidle's service weapons to him after they were seized.
The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office asked the Supreme Court to take the case, and the attorney general's office opposed certification.
The attorney general argued the petition for certification raises no unsettled questions of law or questions of general public importance. In court papers, the attorney general noted that Wright discussed the hybrid status of prosecutors—they act as officers of the state when they carry out actions related to investigation and enforcement of criminal laws but also act on behalf of the county when they undertake tasks unrelated to their prosecutorial functions.
"This distinction has been recognized even though if one makes a broad enough argument—as petitioners have done—any tasks undertaken by prosecutor's office employees could be said to relate in some way to law enforcement," the attorney general's office said in its petition.
The attorney general agreed to indemnify the Monmouth County defendants for allegations of failing to monitor evidence of stalking by Seidle, failing to conduct a proper internal affairs investigation, failing to respond properly to the scene of the fatal shooting, and failing to file or assist Wilson-Seidle with filing a restraining order against Seidle.
The state refused to indemnify the county for claims that it failed to properly supervise, monitor or retain officers, allowed Seidle to remain employed, failed to follow guidelines of the attorney general for handling of domestic violence complaints involving law enforcement officers and returned Seidle's service weapon to him.
A spokesman for Gramiccioni did not respond to a request for comment. The attorney general's office declined to comment beyond the contents of its brief.
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 AllHit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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