Semkus v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Semkus v. State

272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 288, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884

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

DecidedMay 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 74 (Semkus 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

Semkus v. State, 272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 288, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered [75]*75July 9, 1998, which denied claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant New York State’s cross motion to dismiss the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant seeks damages for his alleged “illegal incarceration” when the Division of Parole improperly classified him as a “category 2” violator and revoked his parole. Determinations pertaining to parole and its revocation, however, are deemed strictly sovereign and quasi-judicial in nature and, accordingly, the State, in making such determinations, is absolutely immune from tort liability (Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, 420, affd 135 AD2d 1155, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). Since claimant seeks damages attributable to the State’s decision to revoke his parole, his claim is barred (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511). This conclusion is not altered by the circumstance that the decision of the Parole Board revoking claimant’s parole was eventually determined to have been in error, since the action of the Parole Board was not thereby deprived of its quasi-judicial character (supra, at 517-518). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York, New York County (Alan Marin, J.), entered [75]*75July 9, 1998, which denied claimant’s motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant New York State’s cross motion to dismiss the claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant seeks damages for his alleged “illegal incarceration” when the Division of Parole improperly classified him as a “category 2” violator and revoked his parole. Determinations pertaining to parole and its revocation, however, are deemed strictly sovereign and quasi-judicial in nature and, accordingly, the State, in making such determinations, is absolutely immune from tort liability (Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, 420, affd 135 AD2d 1155, lv denied 71 NY2d 802). Since claimant seeks damages attributable to the State’s decision to revoke his parole, his claim is barred (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511). This conclusion is not altered by the circumstance that the decision of the Parole Board revoking claimant’s parole was eventually determined to have been in error, since the action of the Parole Board was not thereby deprived of its quasi-judicial character (supra, at 517-518). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 288, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/semkus-v-state-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack