From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrison-Allen v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 5, 2017
152 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

07-05-2017

Sandra MORRISON–ALLEN, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.

Sandra Morrison–Allen, Uniondale, NY, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael S. Belohlavek and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.


Sandra Morrison–Allen, Uniondale, NY, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Michael S. Belohlavek and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for the wrongful termination of her parental rights, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated November 23, 2015, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 9 and 10 to dismiss the claim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To the extent that the subject claim is predicated on allegations that the claimant was wrongfully involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39(a), the time within which to file such a claim would have been two years from the date on which her involuntary commitment came to an end (see Boland v. State of New York, 30 N.Y.2d 337, 341–342, 333 N.Y.S.2d 410, 284 N.E.2d 569 ; Court of Claims Act § 10[5] ). As the claimant was released on November 23, 2005, and this claim was not filed until nearly 10 years later, it follows that any claim predicated on the alleged wrongful commitment is time-barred.

The remainder of the subject claim alleges, inter alia, that the Family Court, Queens County, wrongfully terminated the claimant's parental rights in 2013 (see

Matter of Stephen Daniel A. [Sandra M.], 122 A.D.3d 837, 996 N.Y.S.2d 707 ). Contrary to the claimant's contention, the Court of Claims does not have the authority to review the merits of the Family Court's determination. Moreover, any acts done in the exercise of judicial functions by the Family Court Judge or court personnel are cloaked with immunity and, thus, cannot form the basis for a claim for damages against the State (see Best v. State of New York, 116 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 984 N.Y.S.2d 214 ; Rosenstein v. State of New York, 37 A.D.3d 208, 829 N.Y.S.2d 93 ; Swain v. State of New York, 294 A.D.2d 956, 957, 741 N.Y.S.2d 788 ; Welch v. State of New York, 203 A.D.2d 80, 81, 610 N.Y.S.2d 21 ; Mullen v. State of New York, 122 A.D.2d 300, 301, 504 N.Y.S.2d 270 ).

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 9 and 10 to dismiss the claim.

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and DUFFY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Morrison-Allen v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jul 5, 2017
152 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Morrison-Allen v. State

Case Details

Full title:Sandra MORRISON–ALLEN, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Jul 5, 2017

Citations

152 A.D.3d 509 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
152 A.D.3d 509

Citing Cases

Sheehan v. State

Accordingly, Judge Fiorella is protected by judicial immunity and the State may not be held liable for his…

Poltorak v. Clarke

Judicial immunity applies only to the actions of a judge in carrying out their judicial duties. ( Green v.…