Falkoff v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Falkoff v. Donovan

245 A.D.2d 541, 666 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 541 (Falkoff v. Donovan) 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

Falkoff v. Donovan, 245 A.D.2d 541, 666 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Roberto, J.), dated January 27, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment in his favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judges and those who perform similar functions, such as Hearing Examiners, “ ‘ “are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly”” (Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, quoting Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356). However, although a Judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he or she took was in excess of authority, he or she will be subject to liability when action was taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” (Stump v Sparkman, supra, at 357). In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the defendant performed any acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Roberto, J.), dated January 27, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment in his favor.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judges and those who perform similar functions, such as Hearing Examiners, “ ‘ “are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly”” (Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, quoting Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356). However, although a Judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he or she took was in excess of authority, he or she will be subject to liability when action was taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction” (Stump v Sparkman, supra, at 357). In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the defendant performed any acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 541, 666 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/falkoff-v-donovan-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack