From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harley v. Perkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 1992
187 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

November 5, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rensselaer County (Keniry, J.).


Even if it is accepted that plaintiff's claims against defendants are not barred by the doctrine of res judicata (cf., Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24), Supreme Court nevertheless properly dismissed the complaint. With respect to the claims asserted against defendants Rensselaer County Family Court Judge John T. Perkinson and former Supreme Court Justice William F. McDermott, the court properly determined that they were barred based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the actions he complains of against these defendants were performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over subject matter so as to take them outside the cloak of judicial immunity (see, Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 121 A.D.2d 828).

Supreme Court also did not err in dismissing the complaint against defendants Office of Court Administration and State Commission on Judicial Conduct. With respect to the claims for money damages, these defendants were State agencies and as such these claims could be asserted only in the Court of Claims (see, N Y Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 8; Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 N.Y.2d 297). Insofar as the complaint alleges intentional conduct or negligence against these defendants, the actions complained of were discretionary or of a quasi-judicial nature for which there is absolute immunity (see, Tango v Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34). To the extent plaintiff requested that these defendants perform certain duties, his claims were in the nature of mandamus to compel and where, as here, the actions involved the exercise of judgment or discretion, no such relief could be granted (cf., Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525). Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Levine, J.P., Mercure, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. [See, Harley v Perkinson, 148 Misc.2d 753.]


Summaries of

Harley v. Perkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 5, 1992
187 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Harley v. Perkinson

Case Details

Full title:GERALD A. HARLEY, Appellant, v. JOHN T. PERKINSON, as Rensselaer County…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 5, 1992

Citations

187 A.D.2d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Topal v. State

In a wide range of situations of the kind presented here, absolute immunity has barred all money damage…

Schwartz v. Kurlander

There is no similar concern with respect to a referee. The fact that a referee, like other quasi-judicial…