Sullivan v. Elliott

Suffolk County District Court

Sullivan v. Elliott

157 Misc. 2d 456, 602 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393

CourtSuffolk County District Court

DecidedSeptember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 Misc. 2d 456 (Sullivan v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Suffolk County District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. Elliott, 157 Misc. 2d 456, 602 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

William B. Rebolini, J.

On May 10, 1993 the defendant, an attorney, was duly appointed as a small claims arbitrator pursuant to the rules set forth in 22 NYCRR 212.41 (m). As an arbitrator the defendant was statutorily empowered to hear and determine small claims controversies (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [3], [5]). On the night in question the defendant, acting in his capacity as an arbitrator, heard a small claims controversy involving the plaintiff upon which he rendered an award. The action at bar [457]*457is based upon the plaintiffs apparent dissatisfaction with the award.

Presently, the defendant moves to dismiss the small claims complaint upon several grounds under CPLR 3211 (a). The first ground posited by the defendant is that he is not liable for damages in a civil action based upon his acts as an arbitrator under the doctrine of judicial immunity. The court agrees. The function of an arbitrator in a small claims proceeding is judicial in nature. Although the rules provide that the arbitrator is not bound by evidentiary rules (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [3]), all testimony is given under oath and the decision of the arbitrator is final and no appeal lies from the award (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [2]). The parties to the controversy must consent to arbitration (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [2]). It is uncontroverted that the plaintiff consented to arbitration in the small claims proceeding.

Since the arbitrator acts as an extension of a District Court Judge he is protected by the same immunities afforded to a Judge. Such immunities are necessary to assure that the arbitrator can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation as a result of liability for damages in civil actions (Butz v Economou, 438 US 478). Only where the arbitrator has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction” can he be subject to liability (see, Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). In the court’s opinion the plaintiff has wholly failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Hence, the small claims complaint cannot survive the motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

William B. Rebolini, J.

On May 10, 1993 the defendant, an attorney, was duly appointed as a small claims arbitrator pursuant to the rules set forth in 22 NYCRR 212.41 (m). As an arbitrator the defendant was statutorily empowered to hear and determine small claims controversies (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [3], [5]). On the night in question the defendant, acting in his capacity as an arbitrator, heard a small claims controversy involving the plaintiff upon which he rendered an award. The action at bar [457]*457is based upon the plaintiffs apparent dissatisfaction with the award.

Presently, the defendant moves to dismiss the small claims complaint upon several grounds under CPLR 3211 (a). The first ground posited by the defendant is that he is not liable for damages in a civil action based upon his acts as an arbitrator under the doctrine of judicial immunity. The court agrees. The function of an arbitrator in a small claims proceeding is judicial in nature. Although the rules provide that the arbitrator is not bound by evidentiary rules (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [3]), all testimony is given under oath and the decision of the arbitrator is final and no appeal lies from the award (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [2]). The parties to the controversy must consent to arbitration (22 NYCRR 212.41 [m] [2]). It is uncontroverted that the plaintiff consented to arbitration in the small claims proceeding.

Since the arbitrator acts as an extension of a District Court Judge he is protected by the same immunities afforded to a Judge. Such immunities are necessary to assure that the arbitrator can perform his functions without harassment or intimidation as a result of liability for damages in civil actions (Butz v Economou, 438 US 478). Only where the arbitrator has acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction” can he be subject to liability (see, Colin v County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653, 654, lv denied 80 NY2d 756). In the court’s opinion the plaintiff has wholly failed to demonstrate that the defendant acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Hence, the small claims complaint cannot survive the motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 Misc. 2d 456, 602 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-elliott-nydistctsuffolk-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack