Royster v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Royster v. Rodriguez

189 A.D.2d 577

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 577 (Royster v. Rodriguez) 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

Royster v. Rodriguez, 189 A.D.2d 577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman C. Ryp, J.), entered on or about January 11, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s application to recover a chattel allegedly wrongfully taken from his former residence under State authority, and for damages in connection therewith, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the grounds, inter alia, that the proceeding against respondent Rodriguez is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 216), that respondents Fields and Simanaca were never properly served, and that respondents Jacobs and Hanlon engaged in no wrongful conduct with respect to petitioner or his property. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman C. Ryp, J.), entered on or about January 11, 1991, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s application to recover a chattel allegedly wrongfully taken from his former residence under State authority, and for damages in connection therewith, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the grounds, inter alia, that the proceeding against respondent Rodriguez is barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 216), that respondents Fields and Simanaca were never properly served, and that respondents Jacobs and Hanlon engaged in no wrongful conduct with respect to petitioner or his property. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royster-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack