New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ALLYN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-010-039, Claim No. 115634, Motion No. M-75744


Synopsis


Claim dismissed based upon the doctrine of judicial immunity.

Case Information

UID:
2008-010-039
Claimant(s):
GLENN B. ALLYN
1 1.The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the only proper party defendant.
Claimant short name:
ALLYN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the only proper party defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
115634
Motion number(s):
M-75744
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
ALLYN, HAUSNER & MONTANILE, LLP
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Rachel Zaffrann, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
December 15, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion, Attorney’s Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits

Defendant brings this pre-answer motion to dismiss the instant claim based upon the doctrine of judicial immunity. The underlying claim alleges a cause of action in libel based upon a Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, filed on May 22, 2008, which granted claimant’s Article 78 proceeding in part and contained a single phrase that characterized some of claimant’s behavior in support of his petition as “disturbingly akin to stalking” (Ex. A, p 3).

It is well settled that a judge’s actions in carrying out judicial functions are entitled to absolute immunity from liability (see Salzano v Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 AD2d 716; Lombardoni v Boccaccio, 121 AD2d 828). Here, the allegedly libelous statement was contained in a filed Decision and Order of a judge exercising her judicial duties. Accordingly, the statement is absolutely privileged, even if the statement is alleged to be false, irrelevant or malicious (Montesano v State of New York, 11 AD3d 436 [alleged libelous statements contained in a decision of a civil court judge exercising her judicial functions were absolutely privileged “even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious”]) because the State may not be held liable where the actions of a State judge are cloaked with judicial immunity (see Davey v State of New York, 31 AD3d 600).

Accordingly, the claim warrants dismissal and defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.



December 15, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims