Judge Sharpe also helped Ellen Coccoma out by dismissing the lawsuit against her in her official capacity pertaining to her investigation and prosecution of my husband's disciplinary case which was related to the Mokay case from which Ellen Coccoma's husband recused.
Judge Sharpe has ruled that Ellen Coccoma is entitled to a "quasi-judicial immunity" for both her investigative and prosecutorial activities because she acted in her official capacity for the Committee on Professional Conduct (COPS).
In his decision Judge Sharpe cited in a negative fashion a case Neroni v. Zayas, recently brought by my husband and which has survived a motion to dismiss at this time.
Judge Sharpe apparently read Neroni v. Zayas very selectively, because in that case, his own court ruled, on March 31, 2014, that a COPS attorney may be sued for money damages for actions in his investigative capacity, because quasi-judicial immunity does not cover investigative functions of the prosecutor.
Notwithstanding the ruling in Neroni v. Zayas, Judge Sharpe made a contrary finding, that Ellen Coccoma, in her capacity as a member of COPS, a body enforcing attorney discipline, was "the arm of the Appellate Court" and was immune under the "quasi-judicial" and prosecutorial immunity, even for her actions in investigative capacity.
Yet, in November of 2013 Judge Sharpe's own court remanded my disciplinary case back into the arms of that same court despite the fact that I claimed that same issue, that since the members of COPS are deemed as "the arm of the Appellate Division" and its part, and since the Appellate Division also makes substantive and procedural rules pertaining to attorney discipline, the Appellate Division conflates in itself executive, legislative and adjudicatory function, functions as an administrative body and not a court, and thus attorneys in New York are denied any judicial review before their licenses are suspended or revoked.
Does Judge Sharpe read what his court produces?
Does Judge Sharpe try to coordinate and harmonize what his court produces?
It is also interesting to mention that prosecutorial immunity was awarded by the U.S. Supreme Court to prosecutors on the premise that they are amenable to discipline and to criminal prosecutions and thus public is not without a remedy.
When the New York State Attorney General represents COPS, and COPS refuse to prosecute disciplinary violations of NYS AG and his assistant attorneys, as they did when I complained about certain misconduct of certain Assistant AGs, the chances of NYS AG prosecuting COPS are non-existent.
When COPS reject all disciplinary complaints against its own attorneys and complain to the Appellate Division about complaints filed with them against their own attorneys, as they did when I turned all attorneys and attorney members of COPS in for fraud upon the court for claiming that I did not appear at a deposition in 2008 to represent my alleged clients when I was not even an attorney, the chances of prosecution of COPS attorneys for disciplinary violations are non-existent.
Then, why does immunity still cover COPS? If the rationale and justification for granting absolute prosecutorial immunity disappeared, the immunity must disappear, too. That is logical and fair, otherwise the society and the victims of such attorneys' wrongdoing society will get no remedy at all, which is definitely contrary to public interests.
The rule of the state of New York - and now federal courts - is enforced again, and again, and again.
If you are a member of the family of a judge, or you are yourself a retired judge, or you are employed with the government, courts will bend over backwards to rescue you and punish the person who is trying to get a remedy for your wrongdoing.
All that Mr. Neroni wanted is to show that Ellen Coccoma deprived him of his due process right to an impartial prosecutor and investigator by deriving a monetary gain from the fruits of her disciplinary investigation and prosecution and to obtain a remedy for that.
What Ellen Coccoma did is well documented.
Judge Sharpe would not even look at the merits of the case.
Judge Sharpe did not even look at the applicable law which does not allow to cloak a prosecutor with absolute immunity for investigative acts.
Judge Sharpe instead ruled for Ellen Coccoma and allowed Ellen Coccoma to apply for attorney's fees against her own victim.
What can I say...
Wives of judges rock! Especially in Judge Sharpe's courtroom.