D'Amato v. Bray

Second Circuit

D'Amato v. Bray

83 F. App'x 380

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

DocketDocket No. 03-7610

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 F. App'x 380 (D'Amato v. Bray) 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

D'Amato v. Bray, 83 F. App'x 380 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff-appellant James D’Ama-to appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge) dismissing sua sponte his amended complaint against John Bray, his former lawyer, for ineffective assistance of counsel and legal malpractice. We affirm.

Judge Seybert properly dismissed the constitutional ineffective assistance claim because Bray was not acting under color of law during his representation of D’Amato. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-23, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); Fine v. City of New York, 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir.1975). Moreover, D’Amato cannot assert a cognizable malpractice claim under New York law so long as his conviction stands. See Britt v. Legal Aid Soc., Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 443, 718 N.Y.S.2d 264, 267, 741 N.E.2d 109 (2000); Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 607, 511 N.E.2d 1126 (1987).

On appeal, D’Amato also raises a litany of grievances against Judge Seybert. We find these claims to be without merit.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se plaintiff-appellant James D’Ama-to appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joanna Seybert, Judge) dismissing sua sponte his amended complaint against John Bray, his former lawyer, for ineffective assistance of counsel and legal malpractice. We affirm.

Judge Seybert properly dismissed the constitutional ineffective assistance claim because Bray was not acting under color of law during his representation of D’Amato. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-23, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); Fine v. City of New York, 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir.1975). Moreover, D’Amato cannot assert a cognizable malpractice claim under New York law so long as his conviction stands. See Britt v. Legal Aid Soc., Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 443, 718 N.Y.S.2d 264, 267, 741 N.E.2d 109 (2000); Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605, 607, 511 N.E.2d 1126 (1987).

On appeal, D’Amato also raises a litany of grievances against Judge Seybert. We find these claims to be without merit.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F. App'x 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damato-v-bray-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack