Montesano v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montesano v. State

11 A.D.3d 435, 782 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11591

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

DocketClaim No. 107627

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 435 (Montesano 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

Montesano v. State, 11 A.D.3d 435, 782 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, [436]*436J.), dated August 19, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state a cause of action since, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies (see Alex-Mitchell: El v State of New York, 2 AD3d 549 [2003]; Swain v State of New York, 294 AD2d 956 [2002]; Sassower v Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585, 586 [1983]; Word v City of Mount Vernon, 65 AD2d 622 [1978]; see also Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356-357 [1978]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ, concur.

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

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, [436]*436J.), dated August 19, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed for failing to state a cause of action since, under the facts alleged by the claimant, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies (see Alex-Mitchell: El v State of New York, 2 AD3d 549 [2003]; Swain v State of New York, 294 AD2d 956 [2002]; Sassower v Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585, 586 [1983]; Word v City of Mount Vernon, 65 AD2d 622 [1978]; see also Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349, 356-357 [1978]).

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 435, 782 N.Y.S.2d 362, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montesano-v-state-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack