Harley v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harley v. State

186 A.D.2d 324, 587 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10809

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 324 (Harley 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

Harley v. State, 186 A.D.2d 324, 587 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lyons, J.), entered May 20, 1991, which granted the State’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Claimant seeks to impose liability upon the State based on the actions of Rensselaer County Family Court Judge John T. Perkinson and former Supreme Court Justice William F. McDermott concerning decisions of theirs in several custody, visitation, support and contempt proceedings between petitioner and his wife. We, however, find no error in the Court of [325]*325Claims’ dismissal of the case against these individuals on the basis of the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Acts performed in excess of jurisdiction are still subject to the privilege and it is only those acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter that fail to come under the umbrella of immunity (Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 121 AD2d 828). Claimant failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the actions he complains of fell into the latter category (see, supra; cf., La Pier v Deyo, 100 AD2d 710). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lyons, J.), entered May 20, 1991, which granted the State’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Claimant seeks to impose liability upon the State based on the actions of Rensselaer County Family Court Judge John T. Perkinson and former Supreme Court Justice William F. McDermott concerning decisions of theirs in several custody, visitation, support and contempt proceedings between petitioner and his wife. We, however, find no error in the Court of [325]*325Claims’ dismissal of the case against these individuals on the basis of the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Acts performed in excess of jurisdiction are still subject to the privilege and it is only those acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter that fail to come under the umbrella of immunity (Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 121 AD2d 828). Claimant failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the actions he complains of fell into the latter category (see, supra; cf., La Pier v Deyo, 100 AD2d 710). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 324, 587 N.Y.S.2d 805, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-v-state-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack