From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

May 4, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Roberto, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Judges and those who perform similar functions, such as Hearing Examiners, "`"are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly"'" (Colin v. County of Suffolk, 181 A.D.2d 653, 654, quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356). The plaintiff has failed to proffer evidence demonstrating that the defendant performed any acts in the "`clear absence of all jurisdiction'" (Stump v. Sparkman, supra, at 357).

Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 4, 1998
250 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan

Case Details

Full title:LINDA D. MISEK-FALKOFF, Appellant, v. W. DENIS DONOVAN, Respondent

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

Date published: May 4, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 579 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 986

Citing Cases

Sheehan v. State

Further, Mr. Coleman had nothing to do with Judge Fiorella's decision of May 20, 2015. Accordingly, Mr.…

Pinkesz Mut. Holdings, LLC v. Pinkesz

As the plaintiffs failed to allege how any of the acts of the rabbinical court defendants were undertaken in…