in order to allegedly coerce a plea or deter an individual from pursuing his or her rights constitutes a “collateral objective” for purposes of a malicious abuse of process claim, the Court concludes that is an inaccurate statement of the law for the reasons discussed in this Memorandum and Order, as well as in the other case authority cited herein. 8 . Defendant Lombardo also moves to dismiss on the ground of absolute immunity and all the individual defendants move to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. With respect to defendant Lombardo, plaintiffs argue that his conduct in encouraging the police to issue the appearance tickets was investigatory, and therefore not protected by absolute immunity. See Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 496, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Amaker v. Coombe, 96 Civ. 1622, 1998 WL
holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity holding that advising police officers as to existence of probable cause in particular case was not protected by absolute immunity holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity holding that the existence of probable cause in a  1983 case is a jury question