Hallum v. Rothberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hallum v. Rothberg

146 A.D.2d 743, 537 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 901

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 A.D.2d 743 (Hallum v. Rothberg) 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

Hallum v. Rothberg, 146 A.D.2d 743, 537 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for misconduct and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 14, 1987, which granted the respective motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs cross motion denominated as "not to dismiss and consolidating against the attorneys for the defendants under the CPLR practice the law & the rule”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Both the defendant Rothberg, in his role as Special Referee, and the defendant District Attorney Morgenthau are absolutely immune from liability for the alleged misconduct contained in the complaint (see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212; Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511; Matter of Covillion v Town of New Windsor, 123 AD2d 763; Calderon v County of Westchester, 111 AD2d 208). Thus, dismissal of the complaint was proper. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for misconduct and fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 14, 1987, which granted the respective motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs cross motion denominated as "not to dismiss and consolidating against the attorneys for the defendants under the CPLR practice the law & the rule”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Both the defendant Rothberg, in his role as Special Referee, and the defendant District Attorney Morgenthau are absolutely immune from liability for the alleged misconduct contained in the complaint (see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212; Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511; Matter of Covillion v Town of New Windsor, 123 AD2d 763; Calderon v County of Westchester, 111 AD2d 208). Thus, dismissal of the complaint was proper. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A.D.2d 743, 537 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hallum-v-rothberg-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack