Szerlip v. Finnegan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szerlip v. Finnegan

56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10725

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 626 (Szerlip v. Finnegan) 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

Szerlip v. Finnegan, 56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 21, 1975, which granted the motion of defendant Town of Blooming Grove to dismiss the complaint as against it. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Neither a police officer nor his employer is subject to a claim of malicious prosecution, false arrest or false imprisonment for executing a certificate of commitment which appears valid on its face. Neither a town nor its employees may be held liable for carrying out an erroneous judicial mandate where the court had jurisdiction over the party and the subject matter involved (cf. Szerlip v Finnegan, 77 Misc 2d 655, affd 47 AD2d 603). Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 21, 1975, which granted the motion of defendant Town of Blooming Grove to dismiss the complaint as against it. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Neither a police officer nor his employer is subject to a claim of malicious prosecution, false arrest or false imprisonment for executing a certificate of commitment which appears valid on its face. Neither a town nor its employees may be held liable for carrying out an erroneous judicial mandate where the court had jurisdiction over the party and the subject matter involved (cf. Szerlip v Finnegan, 77 Misc 2d 655, affd 47 AD2d 603). Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 626, 391 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szerlip-v-finnegan-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack