Three New Rochelle Cops. Three DAs. Three Proceedings. One Question Nobody Will Answer.

DUBLIN, IRELAND (June 3, 2026) — There is a remarkable irony at the center of a story I have been reporting for the past few weeks, one that I don’t think has been fully appreciated yet.

Susan Cacace is now the Westchester County District Attorney. Before that, she was a Westchester County Supreme Court judge. In that role, on January 30, 2023, she ruled against New Rochelle City Court Judge Matthew Costa in an Article 78 proceeding brought by then-DA Miriam Rocah. The case — Rocah v. Costa — resulted in a ruling that prosecutors could not be sanctioned for late disclosure of officer disciplinary records in the absence of a showing of prejudice to defendants. To be clear about what that ruling was and was not: it was a decision in a specific county-level Article 78 proceeding arising from two DWI cases in New Rochelle City Court. It was not a binding appellate precedent. Costa appealed it to the Second Department, where it remains pending. But within Westchester County, it shaped how the DA’s office understood its disclosure obligations. Cacace ruled for Rocah. Costa appealed. That appeal is still pending.

Rocah defeated Scarpino in a 2020 Democratic primary challenge and took office on January 4, 2021. In October 2023, she announced she would not seek re-election, and served out the remainder of her term through December 31, 2024. Costa left the bench and returned to private practice. The Second Department appeal — Rocah v. Costa, Docket 2023-02319 — continues, with neither party in their original role. I am monitoring Second Department handdown decisions every Wednesday and will report when a ruling is issued. The decision has major implications for the rights of defendants in Westchester County under the CPL Article 245 discovery reforms — the landmark 2020 law that replaced the old “blindfold law” CPL 240, establishing a presumption of sharing and placing an affirmative obligation on prosecutors to automatically disclose discovery material, including officer disciplinary records, without waiting for the defense to ask.

Now I am asking Cacace’s office whether its predecessors actually fulfilled the Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations that Cacace’s own ruling addressed.

The answer, so far, is: we don’t know, and we’re not going to find out for you.