Opinion
# 2016-050-058 Claim No. 122604 Motion No. M-88127
10-13-2016
KATI SARRA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC By: Allen J. Rosner, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Daniel S. Hallak, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Actions of a District Court Judge and his personnel are protected by judicial immunity. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-050-058 |
| Claimant(s): | KATI SARRA |
| Claimant short name: | SARRA |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 122604 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88127 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
| Claimant's attorney: | Edelman, Krasin & Jaye, PLLC By: Allen J. Rosner, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Daniel S. Hallak, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 13, 2016 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The defendant moves to dismiss the claim herein by notice of motion dated February 3, 2016 (motion number M-88127). The claimant opposes said motion.
The claimant filed a claim on April 10, 2013 wherein she claims to have been falsely arrested due to the alleged mistake by the Nassau County Probation Department and clerks of the First District Court of Nassau County. Claimant further alleges that her loss of liberty and false arrest were caused by the County of Nassau and the Nassau County Police Department. Claimant, as part of her claim, cites violations of her State Constitutional rights and Federal Constitutional rights. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim on the ground, inter alia, that the acts alleged by claimant are protected by absolute immunity.
The absolute immunity claimed by defendant is well-recognized. There can be no cause of action against the State based upon the conduct of judges when they are carrying out their official judicial functions (see Salzano v Town of Poughkeepsie, 300 AD2d 716 [3d Dept 2002]; Bardascini v Reedy, 51 AD2d 271 [3d Dept 1976], appeal denied 40 NY2d 803 [1976]). This is true whether the actions were mistaken, wrongful or even malicious (see Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 [1978]). "Unless the judicial acts were performed in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, judicial immunity applies" (see Davey v State of New York, UID No. 2005-029-503 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., July 14, 2005] affd 31 AD3d 600 [2d Dept 2006]). Judicial immunity shields not only judges, but also shields "other neutrally positioned government officials regardless of title, who are delegated judicial or quasi-judicial functions" since these individuals "should not be shackled with the fear of civil retribution for their acts" (see Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511 [1986]). As with judges, the immunity granted to these individuals protects them even when they are wrong or if they perform their duty inadequately (see Moser-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]).
The claim herein also alleges a violation of claimant's constitutional rights. "[C]laims for damages against the State based on alleged deprivation of rights under the U.S. Constitution are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims" ( Shelton v New York State Liq. Auth., 61 AD3d 1145 [3d Dept 2009]). Claims in connection with alleged State Constitutional violations are only permitted in limited circumstances where no other remedy is feasible to provide citizens with an avenue of redress (see Martinez v City of Schenectady, 97 NY2d 78 [2001]).
In the instant case, the personnel claimant accuses of violating her rights are shielded by judicial immunity. Claimant does not allege that the actions by the judge nor employees were performed without subject matter jurisdiction, which is the only way immunity would not attach.
Finally, claimant has also failed to establish that no other cause of action is available as an avenue of redress.
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted and the claim is hereby dismissed (see Davey v State of New York, 31 AD3d 600 [2d Dept 2006]).
October 13, 2016
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim: 1. Notice of Motion, Affirmation with supporting Exhibits. 2. Affirmation in Opposition. 3. Affirmation In Support Of Motion To Dismiss.