Drakeford v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Drakeford v. City of New York

6 A.D.3d 302, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773

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

DecidedApril 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 302 (Drakeford v. City of New York) 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

Drakeford v. City of New York, 6 A.D.3d 302, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[303]*303Legal claims against the Kings County District Attorney for tortious conduct are properly lodged against the City of New York (see Morris v City of New York, 198 AD2d 35, 36 [1993]). However, this record is devoid of any factual circumstances supporting plaintiffs rambling and conclusory allegations of tortious, extrajudicial conduct. The complaint of malicious prosecution is precluded by the District Attorney’s entitlement to absolute immunity from civil claims arising out of the scope of a prosecution (Hirschfeld v City of New York, 253 AD2d 53, 59 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 814 [1999]). Concur—Torn, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granted summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[303]*303Legal claims against the Kings County District Attorney for tortious conduct are properly lodged against the City of New York (see Morris v City of New York, 198 AD2d 35, 36 [1993]). However, this record is devoid of any factual circumstances supporting plaintiffs rambling and conclusory allegations of tortious, extrajudicial conduct. The complaint of malicious prosecution is precluded by the District Attorney’s entitlement to absolute immunity from civil claims arising out of the scope of a prosecution (Hirschfeld v City of New York, 253 AD2d 53, 59 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 814 [1999]). Concur—Torn, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 302, 775 N.Y.S.2d 138, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drakeford-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack