Opinion
# 2015-032-012 Claim No. 124241 Motion No. M-85622
03-09-2015
HENRY I. CISCO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Henry I. Cisco, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Synopsis
Case information
UID: | 2015-032-012 |
Claimant(s): | HENRY I. CISCO |
Claimant short name: | CISCO |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 124241 |
Motion number(s): | M-85622 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
Claimant's attorney: | Henry I. Cisco, Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 9, 2015 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves this Court for an Order pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (2) and (7) and Court of Claims Act § 8, 9, 10 and 11, dismissing the claim for failure to obtain subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action, and on the basis that the claim is barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. Claimant has not submitted any papers in response to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and Claim No. 124241 is dismissed.
The claim alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to protect and safeguard him from a Supreme Court Justice's failure to perform acts within the scope of his employment and in the discharge of his official duties as a judge (Claim, ¶ 2). Specifically, it alleges that said Supreme Court Justice willfully, knowingly, deliberately and negligently disregarded provisions of the law that resulted in the improper and erroneous dismissal of claimant's Article 78 petition (Claim, ¶ 4).
In support of its motion, defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed because the State cannot be held liable for the acts of State-employed judges except in circumstances not relevant herein. The Court agrees.
"It is well settled that a '[j]udge is immune from civil liability for acts done in the exercise of his [or her] judicial function'" (Best v State of New York, 116 AD3d 1198 [3d Dept 2014], quoting Salzano v Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 AD2d 716, 717 [3d Dept 2002][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Likewise, the State cannot be held responsible, under the theory of respondeat superior, for any alleged errors made by its judges in their judicial capacity (see Koeppe v City of Hudson, 276 AD 443 [3d Dept 1950]; Pooler v State of New York, UID No. 2013-044-542 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Oct. 15, 2013]). The only two exceptions to the doctrine of judicial immunity are: (1) when a judge does not act as a judge, and (2) when a judge, though acting under color of judicial authority, lacks any jurisdiction supporting judicial authority for the action taken (see Mireles v Waco, 502 US 9, 11-12 [1991]; Alvarez v Snyder, 264 AD2d 27, 34 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 759 [2000]).
In the present case, claimant has alleged no facts which suggest that the Supreme Court Justice was acting as anything other than a judge, nor that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter that was before him.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss (Motion No. M-85622) and dismisses Claim No. 124241.
March 9, 2015 Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion to Dismiss Claim, dated May 27, 2014; and Affirmation of Ray A. Kyles, AAG, affirmed on May 27, 2014.
Papers Filed: Claim, filed April 17, 2014; Order of Hon. Richard E. Sise, Acting Presiding Justice, filed May 6, 2014; and Order (Transfer of Motion), filed January 5, 2015.