POTSDAM – A 2015 court decision in favor of a Potsdam auto dealer who claimed malicious prosecution in a case of alleged false odometer filings has been overturned. The decision, reversing an …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
POTSDAM – A 2015 court decision in favor of a Potsdam auto dealer who claimed malicious prosecution in a case of alleged false odometer filings has been overturned.
The decision, reversing an October 2015 decision in favor of Cornelius “Con” Mahoney of Mahoney’s Auto Mall on U.S. Rt. 11, negates the ruling finding that he was the victim of malicious prosecution and false arrest he claimed in a 2003 case where Mahoney and his office manager were charged with falsifying documents claiming to report vehicle mileage conversions from kilometers to miles in used cars the dealership was importing from Canada for sale here.
While allowing that the investigation of the case by a member of the State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, James DiSalvo, was “overzealous and, at times, relentless,” state Supreme Court Justice Karen K. Peters, presiding over an appeals panel. She ruled on Feb. 23 that “any purported malicious motive on the part of DiSalvo is irrelevant to the claims at issue,” and quoting an earlier related court decision, failed to show conclusively “that the police conduct deviated egregiously from statutory requirements or accepted practices.” Four other justices on the panel concurred.
The case began in 2001 when Mahoney and his daughter, office manager Erin Hayes, concocted false conversion documents filed with the state Department of Motor Vehicles which purported to be from a contractor but which were written on false letterhead.
Mahoney claimed in his suit that police, in bringing charges of several counts of first-degree offering a false instrument for filing, a felony, and several other charges, engaged in a overbearing investigation that amounted to a possible pattern of harassment. Those charges were dismissed on grounds of failing to provide a speedy trial.
At that point Mahoney filed his civil suit, claiming damages as the result of the prosecution, defamation of himself and his businesses, and other claims.