From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montesano v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 4, 2004
11 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-08819

October 4, 2004.

In a claim to recover damages for defamation and libel, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Waldon, J.), dated August 14, 2003, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Before: Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The alleged libelous statements contained in a decision of the New York City Civil Court were written by the Judge in the exercise of her judicial functions. These statements are absolutely privileged, even if such statements are alleged to be false, irrelevant, or malicious ( see Misek-Falkoff v. Donovan, 250 AD2d 579; Colin v. County of Suffolk, 181 AD2d 653; Sassower v. Finnerty, 96 AD2d 585, 586; Salomon v. Mahoney, 271 App Div 478, affd no op 297 NY 643). Furthermore, the defendant may not be held liable for the actions of a state-employed judge where, as here, those actions are cloaked with judicial immunity ( see Swain v. State of New York, 294 AD2d 956; Weiner v. State of New York, 273 AD2d 95, 97; Welch v. State of New York, 203 AD2d 80, 81; Harley v. State of New York, 186 AD2d 324; Word v. City of Mount Vernon, 65 AD2d 622). Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim was properly granted.

The claimant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Montesano v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 4, 2004
11 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Montesano v. State

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS MONTESANO, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Claim No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 4, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
782 N.Y.S.2d 362

Citing Cases

Yefimova v. State

In addition, even if the judges were State employees, "[j]udicial immunity bars any action against judges of…

West v. State

"Judicial immunity bars any action against judges of the State for their judicial acts, and the State is not…