By JIMMY LAWTON

CANTON -- A St. Lawrence County Surrogate Court Judge has denied a request from the county District Attorney’s office to appoint a special prosecutor in all cases involving Edward F. Narrow of Dumas & Narrow, P.C., but did grant the request in some specific cases.

“The court hereby denies the blanket request of the Office of the District Attorney for the appointment of a special prosecutor in every case in which attorney Narrow is the attorney for the defendant,” Judge John Richey said in his decision.

Richey added that the court would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate “purported criminal activities” of Narrow relating to his representation of Oral Nicholas Hillary and former Chief ADA David Haggard.

If granted, the request would have forced the county to pay for special prosecutors in at least 59 pending cases, a task Judge Richey said would be difficult to do in an area with a relatively low number of attorneys.

“The second concern is that the costs associated with such appointments would harshly burden an already fiscally stressed county,” he said.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Frank Cositore made the request to appoint special prosecutors due to conflicts and ethical issues including a grievance allegedly filed by Narrow against Rain’s office and alleged criminal activities involving Narrow.

The judge ruled that the case involving the alleged grievance was dismissed and the “factual basis for the grievance occurred on the record and in open court.” The judge also pointed out that Rain and Cositore acknowledged the wrongdoing.

“Assuming that the grievance relates solely to matters that took place on the record – the Law Intern Jirik exceeding the scope of his practice order, the District Attorney allowing same to occur, and the admission by Cositore on the record that the assignment of the case to Jirik was 'a mistake' – the further testimony of witnesses, and particularly that of the complainant, Attorney Narrow, would appear unnecessary.”

“Distilled to its essence, the District Attorney is arguing that to continue to engage with Attorney Narrow would create the appearance of impropriety due to his filing of the grievance against her and her staff,” Richey said in his ruling. “The court disagrees.”

Richey goes on to say that the claim does not rise to level of being a “rare circumstance” where the appearance of impropriety itself is “a legitimate basis for disqualification.”

Cositore also alleged criminal activities arising form Narrow’s representation of and professional interactions with Haggard and in relation to the Oral Nick Hillary case.

In those cases, Richey said a special prosecutor could be appointed.

“The appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the activities of Attorneys Narrow and Haggard is a remedy that allows the court to address the concerns of the parties involved, but also significantly reduces the number of cases in which a special prosecutor must be appointed.

The judge also granted approval of a special prosecutor for those investigations as well as in the Matter of the People V. Shawn G. Sheridan.

“In that particular case, the district attorney questioned the legitimacy of the pending indictment due to the relationship of Attorney Narrow and former Chief Assistant District Attorney David Haggard, and announced the existence of a pending criminal investigation against Attorney Narrow, and by implication, former Chief Assistant District Attorney David Haggard. Under those circumstances, the court finds actual prejudice to the defendant arising from this conflict of interest and will grant the request for a special prosecutor.