Judicial Liability

Judicial Liability for Family Court Judges

Similarly, public policy bars a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity,

  1. Wyllie v District Atty. of County of Kings, 2 AD3d 714, 770 NYS2d 110 (2d Dept 2003); public policy barred intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against district attorneys and city
  1. Liranzo v New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 300 AD2d 548, 752 NYS2d 568 (2d Dept 2002); Dillon v New York, 261 AD2d 34, 704 NYS2d 1 (1st Dept 1999); Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress against government bodies are barred as a matter of public policy
  1. Lauer v New York, 240 AD2d 543, 659 NYS2d 57 (2d Dept 1997); see Tatta v State, 51 AD3d 1295, 857 NYS2d 815 (3d Dept 2008); public policy precludes intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against defendant for official misconduct
  1. Augat v State, 244 AD2d 835, 666 NYS2d 249 (3d Dept 1997); Public policy prohibits maintenance of suit against state for intentional infliction of emotional distress if act complained of was official conduct.
  1. Van Buskirk v Bleiler, 46 AD2d 707, 360 NYS2d 88 (3d Dept 1974) (rule applies to individuals acting in official capacity). While there is no general civil immunity for members of school board, where they act in their official capacity, they cannot, as matter of public policy, be held individually liable even if charged with malicious intent

If, HOWEVER, the conduct constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC § 1983, malice or recklessness will give rise to liability,

Smith v Wade, 461 US 30, 103 SCt 1625 (1983); The large majority of state and lower federal courts were in agreement that punitive damage awards did not require a showing of actual malicious intent; they permitted punitive awards on variously stated standards of negligence, recklessness, or other culpable conduct short of actual malicious intent

We hold that a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.

see PJI 3:60 Constitutional Torts-42 USC Section 183— Civil Action for Deprivation of Federally Secured Rights

REDRESSING DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY STATE CONSTITUTIONS OUTSIDE THE SHADOW OF THE SUPREME COURT’S CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES JURISPRUDENCE

Penn State Law Review Spring, 2011115 Penn St. L. Rev. 877Gary S. Gildin

The legal system’s willingness to award a viable remedy to persons harmed by the government’s invasion of individual liberty is a vital component of any regime of constitutional protection. English common law, international human rights instruments, and the seminal decision of the United States Supreme Court establishing the power of judicial…

Azzarella v. the City of New York

Supreme Court, New York, Bronx CountySeptember 02, 20142014 WL 5364549No. 303044/12.

In this action, for false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force and malicious prosecution, plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR § 3124 for an order compelling defendants to provid4e…

…The appellants’ contentions regarding conspiracy are vague and conclusory, and fail to offer sufficient factual details regarding an agreement among the respondents/defendants to deprive the appellant of property in the absence of due process of law, the equal protection of the laws, or privileges and immunities secured to the appellant by the laws and the Constitution of the United States.”]; Landmark West! v Tierney, 25 AD3d 319, 320 [1st Dept 2006] [ “Petitioner’s conspiracy and 42 USC § 1983 claims lack allegations sufficient to show a scheme to undermine its First Amendment right…

…Accordingly, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 should be granted where the complaint fails to plead the existence of an official policy or custom which deprived him of a constitutional right in violation of 42 USC § 1983 ( Liu v New York City Police Dept., 216 AD2d 67, 68 [1st Dept 1995]), or when the complaint fails to allege any facts from which it could be reasonably inferred that the defendants had a policy or custom of which caused the constitutional…

…Thus, a person has a private right of action under 42 USC § 1983 against an individual who, acting under color of law, violates federal constitutional or statutory rights ( Delgado v City of New York, 86 AD3d 502, 511 [1st Dept 2011] [ “A complaint alleging gratuitous or excessive use of force by a police officer states a cause of action under the statute ( 42 USC § 1983) against that officer.”]; Morgan v City of New York, 32 AD3d 912, 914-915 [2d Dept 2006] [ “The complaint states a cause of action for violation of the decedent’s Fourth Amendment rights…

…valid claim of conspiracy under § 1983 to violate a complainant’s constitutional rights must contain allegations of (1) a conspiracy itself, plus (2) actual deprivation of constitutional rights….