Bridget M. v. Billick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bridget M. v. Billick

36 A.D.3d 489, 826 N.Y.S.2d 568

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 489 (Bridget M. v. Billick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridget M. v. Billick, 36 A.D.3d 489, 826 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[490]*490Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 26, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, a psychiatrist appointed by the court as the neutral forensic evaluator with the consent of the parties’ attorneys and the children’s Law Guardian in an underlying custody proceeding in Family Court (see Matter of John A. v Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]), has judicial immunity from suit for malpractice regarding the work he performed (see Colombo v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 522 [2005]; Deed v Condrell, 150 Misc 2d 279 [1991], affd 177 AD2d 1055 [1991]). Plaintiffs have failed to show any exception that would warrant lifting the immunity. Concur — Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

[490]*490Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila AbdusSalaam, J.), entered January 26, 2006, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, a psychiatrist appointed by the court as the neutral forensic evaluator with the consent of the parties’ attorneys and the children’s Law Guardian in an underlying custody proceeding in Family Court (see Matter of John A. v Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]), has judicial immunity from suit for malpractice regarding the work he performed (see Colombo v Schwartz, 15 AD3d 522 [2005]; Deed v Condrell, 150 Misc 2d 279 [1991], affd 177 AD2d 1055 [1991]). Plaintiffs have failed to show any exception that would warrant lifting the immunity. Concur — Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 489, 826 N.Y.S.2d 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridget-m-v-billick-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack