" This is consistent with many cases, e.g., Mudge v. State of New York ( 271 App. Div. 1039) where it was noted: "Any error the Magistrate may have made in the exercise of his jurisdiction, whether in the issuance of proper process or decision of means, manner, or method in accomplishment of the objective which was within his jurisdiction, did not constitute false imprisonment or render any ministerial officer or employee of the State liable for false imprisonment because they obeyed directions for its execution." In the early case of People v. Warren (5 Hill 440 [1843]) the Supreme Court held on certiorari from the Oneida General Sessions that where the inspectors of election issued a warrant within their statutory jurisdiction and regular on its face, the knowledge of the officer executing the warrant of its erroneous issuance was no defense.

Any unnecessary delay in arraigning the plaintiff was attributable to the facially valid securing order issued by a court with appropriate authority and jurisdiction. It was stipulated that the police did not employ improper means in obtaining the securing order (cf., Ross v Village of Wappingers Falls, 62 A.D.2d 892), and that there was no undue delay between the time of the plaintiff's arrest and the time the court issued the securing order. Neither a police officer nor his employer may be held liable in an action to recover damages for false imprisonment for carrying out a facially valid judicial mandate, even though erroneously or improvidently issued, where the court, as here, had jurisdiction over the person and the crimes charged (see, Szerlip v Finnegan, 56 A.D.2d 626; Ford v State of New York, 21 A.D.2d 437; Mudge v State of New York, 271 App. Div. 103 9; see also, Douglas v State of New York, 296 N.Y. 530; Stalteri v County of Monroe, 107 A.D.2d 1071; Saunsen v State of New York, 81 A.D.2d 252). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Dispositive of the present appeal, however, is the clear showing from the record that the Town Justice possessed the requisite jurisdiction to issue the process in question which was valid on its face. Accordingly, there can be no liability on the part of the State for the actions of its officers, and the claim was properly dismissed (Corcoran v State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 991, affd 24 N.Y.2d 922; Ford v State of New York, 21 A.D.2d 437; Mudge v State of New York, 271 App. Div. 103 9). Order affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J.P., Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur; Mahoney, J., not taking part.

The continued detention of claimant following his arraignment, however, rested upon the order of the Justice of the Peace, and even though the Justice made an erroneous determination, if he had jurisdiction of the charge and of claimant, the State may not be held liable for such continued false imprisonment ( Warner v. State of New York, supra; Caminito v. City of New York, 25 A.D.2d 848, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 931; Douglas v. State of New York, 269 App. Div. 521, affd. 296 N.Y. 530; Ford v. State of New York, 21 A.D.2d 437; Jameison v. State of New York, 7 A.D.2d 944; Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 1039). The facts presented to the Justice of the Peace against claimant showed that the court had jurisdiction of the person and the charge.

After arraignment, claimant was taken to the Schenectady County Jail where he was held for about four hours until released in custody on $50 bail. Subsequently, in December, 1961 the Justice of the Peace dismissed the charge. Any alleged error committed by the Justice of the Peace, as to which we reach no decision, was an erroneous judicial determination for which the State was not liable. ( Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 1039; Douglas v. State of New York, 269 App. Div. 521, affd. 296 N.Y. 530.) We determine that the warrant was valid on its face, and as such, the arresting officer was not required to institute an inquiry into its alleged invalidity.

The arresting officer was a mere ministerial employee confronted with a directive for the arrest of the plaintiff and in obeying it he did not subject himself or the municipality to an action for false arrest and imprisonment. ( Nastasi v. State of New York, 275 App. Div. 534, affd. 300 N.Y. 473; Fishbein v. State of New York, 204 Misc. 151, affd. 282 App. Div. 600; see, also, Vittorio v. St. Regis Paper Co., 239 N.Y. 148; Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 1039.) The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Whether this inquiry was not made by the court, or made and erroneously determined, the effect is the same. The error committed was an erroneous judicial determination for which the State was not liable (Mudge v. State of New York, 271 A.D. 1039; Douglas v. State of New York, 269 A.D. 521, affd. 296 N.Y. 530).           That part of the claim which is based upon the acts of the parole officer, and under the allegations already referred to, states a valid cause of action against the State in our opinion if it is to be held that a county probation officer is a State officer or employee of the State.

They were confronted with what appeared to be a valid directive for the arrest and incarceration of the claimant, and in yielding obedience to it they did not subject themselves or the State to an action for false arrest and imprisonment. ( Douglas v. State of New York, 269 App. Div. 521, affd. 296 N.Y. 530; Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 103 9; Reilly v. State of New York, 190 Misc. 862; Porter v. State of New York, 190 Misc. 739.) The judgment should be reversed and the claim dismissed, without costs.

In an action for false arrest, the right to recover for damages is limited to the period of wrongful detention and recovery ceases upon the detention's subsequently being made valid ( Warner v. State of New York, 297 N.Y. 395; 22 N.Y. Jur., False Imprisonment, § 59, p. 497). Where a continued detention following arraignment of a person on a criminal charge rests upon the order of a Judge having jurisdiction of the person and the charge, liability beyond arraignment for false arrest will not continue even if the Justice makes an erroneous determination in exercise of his jurisdiction ( Casler v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 305; Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 1039). In the case here presented, the arresting officer, Donofrio, did not file an information against plaintiff, which thereby deprived the City Court of jurisdiction to prosecute plaintiff upon the charge for which he was arrested and which resulted in the proceeding's being dismissed against the plaintiff.

They were confronted with what appeared to be a valid directive for * * * incarceration of the claimant, and in yielding obedience to it they did not subject themselves or the State to an action for false arrest and imprisonment. ( Douglas v. State of New York, 269 App. Div. 521, affd. 296 N.Y. 530; Mudge v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 1039; Reilly v. State of New York, 190 Misc. 862; Porter v. State of New York, 190 Misc. 739.)" This was unanimously affirmed without opinion ( 300 N.Y. 473).