New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MONTESANO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-028-550, Claim No. 107333, Motion No. M-66584


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-028-550
Claimant(s):
LOUIS MONTESANO
Claimant short name:
MONTESANO
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107333
Motion number(s):
M-66584
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
LOUIS MONTESANO, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 12, 2003
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers have been read and considered by the Court on the Motion of the Defendant, State of New York, for an Order pursuant to Rule 3211 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, dismissing the instant claim:

(1) Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Grace A. Brannigan (Brannigan Affirmation) with annexed Exhibit, filed March 25, 2003;

(2) Affidavit in Opposition of Louis Montesano, pro se (Montesano Affidavit), filed April 7, 2003.

The claim herein seeks damages against the State based upon the failure of a court reporter in the Supreme Court to supply Mr. Montesano with a copy of a transcript.

The court reporter, Edry Jemmott, advised the Claimant that his transcript would be prepared within the next few months, because she was backlogged for two or three months with other requests for transcripts. The Claimant refused to accept her explanation and proceeded to commence the instant action (Exhibit "A" annexed to Notice of Motion).

The Court finds that the court reporter is clothed with "quasi judicial" immunity, which applies to those acts of court personnel whose acts constitute a basic part of the judicial process (see Weiner v State of New York, 273 AD2d 95). The argument of Claimant that this act of providing a transcript is ministerial and not judicial is immaterial to the issue of immunity (see Weiner v State of New York, supra at 97).

Therefore, the Court finds that the claim fails to state a cause of action and the Defendant's Motion is hereby granted. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.

June 12, 2003
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims