Suffolk County seeks to overturn $112M verdict in years-old immigrant detention case

Suffolk County argued this week that a $112 million jury verdict handed down five months ago on the detention of immigrants in the country illegally was “fundamentally flawed” and should be overturned.

The county made its case in court filings that the trial in a nearly decade-old lawsuit featured "several substantial errors."

The case stems from Suffolk's policy under former Sheriff Vincent DeMarco to honor detainers issued through the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency, a practice halted after a 2018 court ruling found it unlawful.

A federal jury awarded the verdict in November following a weeklong trial. The county’s Manhattan-based law firm Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky filed a motion in December to have the verdict either vacated or a new trial.

The two sides presented arguments on the motion before Judge William F. Kuntz II in Eastern District Court in Brooklyn Tuesday. Both sides now wait for Kuntz to issue a written decision.

Jose L. Perez, deputy general counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a Manhattan-based advocacy group that filed the suit along with a law firm, said the county is “grasping at straws.”

“In our opinion, they’re trying to evade legal responsibility and liability when it’s their own voluntary course of conduct that led to the results,” he said in an interview.

Mike Martino, spokesman for County Executive Edward P. Romaine, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the county challenging the verdict, but he previously said, "There are many legal aspects which the county will address during the appeals process."

In its defense, the county argued the detainees were not restricted from challenging their confinement, the court issued jury instructions that were “erroneous” and the court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to request a specific amount of money from the jury “without supporting evidence.”

While the appeal process continues, the county has already prepared to pay the sum by securing a $125 million surety bond should it lose. The Suffolk Legislature adopted a resolution on Nov. 25 to authorize the county executive to obtain the bond “as a financial guarantee” while the appeal process continued. The county was required by the court to obtain the bond to have the funds available, according to the resolution.

Acquiring the bond cost $650,000, according to the resolution.

The county has continued to rack up legal fees in defending the case since Kuntz ruled in January 2025 the county violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of immigrants. The county hired outside counsel after that decision.

Suffolk paid the law firm about $2.4 million in 2025, according to payment vouchers obtained through a public records request. That figure does not include additional payments made in January and February.

During a budget hearing last October before Suffolk lawmakers, county attorney Chris Clayton described the lawsuit as a “complex piece of litigation that’s costing us a lot of money to defend.”

The original complaint was filed on behalf of Joaquin Orellana Castaneda, an immigrant from Guatemala, who had been stopped by Suffolk police for a traffic violation and booked on a driving while intoxicated-related arrest. He was held on an ICE detainer for two days after his bail was posted on the local charge, according to previous reports. The case grew to include about 650 people who were similarly held longer than the local charge required. The county had argued it was entitled to immunity because it acted under federal authority, an assertion the court had dismissed.  

At the November trial, a nine-person jury awarded $75 million based off Kuntz’s January 2025 ruling and an additional $37 million on a separate due process claim.

If the judge rules against the county on the latest motion, Perez said he expects they would appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a separate motion, which was not part of the deliberations Tuesday, the plaintiffs attorneys sought $5.7 million in attorney fees. The county’s attorneys said in court filings  the figure is "premature” and “far in excess of clear forum rules on reasonable rates for prevailing counsel.”

By Joe Werkmeister

joe.werkmeister@newsday.com

Joe Werkmeister joined Newsday in 2022 and covers Suffolk County government and politics. He is a graduate of St. Bonaventure University and previously worked as the editor of two North Fork community newspapers.

---