Davey v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davey v. State

31 A.D.3d 600, 817 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedJuly 18, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 600 (Davey v. State) 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

Davey v. State, 31 A.D.3d 600, 817 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated July 14, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim. Under the facts alleged by the claimant, the actions complained of were judicial acts and therefore were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity (see Matter of Covillion v Town of New Windsor, 123 AD2d 763, 763-764 [1986]; Sassower v Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585, 586 [1983]). The State “may not be held liable for the actions of a state-employed judge where, as here, those actions are cloaked with judicial immunity” (Montesano v State of New York, 11 AD3d 436 [2004]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mignano, J.), dated July 14, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim. Under the facts alleged by the claimant, the actions complained of were judicial acts and therefore were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity (see Matter of Covillion v Town of New Windsor, 123 AD2d 763, 763-764 [1986]; Sassower v Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585, 586 [1983]). The State “may not be held liable for the actions of a state-employed judge where, as here, those actions are cloaked with judicial immunity” (Montesano v State of New York, 11 AD3d 436 [2004]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.3d 600, 817 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davey-v-state-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack