Glowinski v. Braun
This text of 105 A.D.2d 1153 (Glowinski v. Braun) 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.
Opinion
Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motions denied. Memorandum: In this action for false arrest, the court erred in dismissing the complaint against Sheriff Braun. Although a Sheriff is not liable for the torts of his deputies while performing criminal functions, he is liable for their torts while performing civil functions (Barr v County of Albany, 50 NY2d 247, 257; Isereau v Stone, 3 AD2d 243). In executing the warrant of arrest issued pursuant to section 153 of the Family Court Act, the Sheriff’s deputies were performing a civil function, since the Family Court proceeding in which the warrant was issued is a civil proceeding (Family Ct Act, § 812, subd 2, par [b]; Sheridan v Major, 15 AD2d 870; see, also, Matter of Flaherty v Milliken, 193 NY 564, 570; Marshon v City of New York, 88 AD2d 811, 812).
The court also erred in dismissing the complaint against Frank Boecio, Erie County Family Court Clerk. A public officer may be subject to liability for a wrongful act if that act is deemed ministerial rather than discretionary or quasijudicial in nature (see Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 41; Santangelo v State of New York, 101 AD2d 20). Here, the act alleged to have been negligently performed, failing to properly retire a warrant, does not involve the “exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results” (Tango v Tulevech, supra, p 41). Thus, the act in question must be considered ministerial (see Waterman v State of New York, 35 Misc 2d 954, 957, mod 19 AD2d 264, affd sub nom. Williams v State of New York, 14 NY2d 793). We find no support in the law for the statement by the court in Marshon v City of New York (88 AD2d 811, 812, supra) that a court clerk enjoys immunity for “negligent effectuation of judicial instructions.” We note that the Court of Appeals in Cox v City of New York (40 NY2d 966) expressly declined to rule on the question. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Moule, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 A.D.2d 1153, 482 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glowinski-v-braun-nyappdiv-1984.