Opinion
January 13, 2000
Judgment, Supreme Court, Nassau County (Edward McCarty III, J.), entered December 3, 1998, dismissing plaintiff's complaint pursuant to a prior order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1998 and March 9, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Pro Se for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Adam L. Aronson for Defendants-Respondents.
ROSENBERGER, J.P., MAZZARELLI, WALLACH, SAXE, JJ.
This is an action by a suspended attorney to recover damages against the Justices of the Appellate Division, Second Department, who issued the order suspending him from practice, the Special Referee the court appointed to hear and report on the charges against the attorney, and the Chief Counsel and assistant counsel of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District who prosecuted the disciplinary charges. The motion court correctly dismissed the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214, 215 PLR N.Y.CPLR), the doctrine of absolute official immunity (see, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 12-13; Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200;Tango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34, 40), and the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, given that a prior action by plaintiff against the same defendants based on the same contentions was dismissed on the ground of absolute official immunity, among other reasons (Jacobs v. Guido, 54 F.3d 765, cert denied 516 U.S. 862), and given that the Appellate Division's implicit finding of its subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the order of suspension (Matter of Jacobs, 188 A.D.2d 228, appeal dismissed, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 681, cert denied 516 U.S. 817) may not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent action (see, Flatauer v. Loser, 211 N.Y. 15, 19).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.