SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant Lindsay P. Quintilone, a former prosecutor, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), denying (in part) her motion to dismiss on grounds of absolute and qualified immunity. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-30 (1985). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

As the district court held, defendant's absolute immunity argument is foreclosed by Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1995), in which we denied absolute immunity to a state prosecutor on facts that are materially the same.

The claim for qualified immunity was abandoned, for unknown reasons, in Quintilone's reply brief ("[f]or purposes of this appeal only"). So we will not consider it at this time. Of course, she may renew the defense before the district court at a later stage (and, if necessary, may seek further appellate review, see Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305-11 (1996)).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in defendant's other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the order of the district court.