Albert Scolnick and Celia Scolnick v. Louis J. Lefkowitz and Isidore Siegel

Second Circuit

Albert Scolnick and Celia Scolnick v. Louis J. Lefkowitz and Isidore Siegel

329 F.2d 716, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5964

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1964

Docket28684_1

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 716 (Albert Scolnick and Celia Scolnick v. Louis J. Lefkowitz and Isidore Siegel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Scolnick and Celia Scolnick v. Louis J. Lefkowitz and Isidore Siegel, 329 F.2d 716, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5964 (2d Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against the present appellees and others for an alleged conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights. Causes of action based on the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed as to all defendants by Judge Metzner, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), F.R.Civ.P.; and plaintiffs’ remaining claim, seeking relief as against defendants Lefkowitz and Siegel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a purported conspiracy to incarcerate them in Bellevue Hospital which had not been dismissed by Judge Metzner, subsequently was dismissed by Judge Muzphy upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Rule 56, F.R. Civ.P.

Defendant Lefkowitz is Attorney General, and defendant Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, of the State of New York. Insofar as plaintiffs complain of defendants’ failure to investigate and act upon reports of an underworld plot to injure them, the defendants’ conduct is clearly privileged as in the exercise of their official, quasi-judicial functions. Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 *717 F.2d 579 (1949); see also Blitz v. Boog, 328 F.2d 596 (2d Cir. 1964). While plaintiffs vaguely assert that the defendants departed from the scope of their official duties in a conspiracy to incarcerate them illegally in a mental institution, Judge Murphy’s award of summary judgment as to this allegation was clearly proper. Defendants’ detailed affidavits, categorically denying the existence of such a conspiracy — and, in the case of defendant Lefkowitz, denying knowledge of the plaintiffs’ very existence — were sufficient to require the plaintiffs to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” under the recent amendments to Rule 56(e); this they failed to do. We find that summary judgment was properly granted.

Judgments of dismissal affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against the present appellees and others for an alleged conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights. Causes of action based on the Fourth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed as to all defendants by Judge Metzner, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), F.R.Civ.P.; and plaintiffs’ remaining claim, seeking relief as against defendants Lefkowitz and Siegel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a purported conspiracy to incarcerate them in Bellevue Hospital which had not been dismissed by Judge Metzner, subsequently was dismissed by Judge Muzphy upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Rule 56, F.R. Civ.P.

Defendant Lefkowitz is Attorney General, and defendant Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, of the State of New York. Insofar as plaintiffs complain of defendants’ failure to investigate and act upon reports of an underworld plot to injure them, the defendants’ conduct is clearly privileged as in the exercise of their official, quasi-judicial functions. Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 *717 F.2d 579 (1949); see also Blitz v. Boog, 328 F.2d 596 (2d Cir. 1964). While plaintiffs vaguely assert that the defendants departed from the scope of their official duties in a conspiracy to incarcerate them illegally in a mental institution, Judge Murphy’s award of summary judgment as to this allegation was clearly proper. Defendants’ detailed affidavits, categorically denying the existence of such a conspiracy — and, in the case of defendant Lefkowitz, denying knowledge of the plaintiffs’ very existence — were sufficient to require the plaintiffs to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” under the recent amendments to Rule 56(e); this they failed to do. We find that summary judgment was properly granted.

Judgments of dismissal affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 716, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-scolnick-and-celia-scolnick-v-louis-j-lefkowitz-and-isidore-siegel-ca2-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack