Weiner v. State of New York
| Decision Date | 15 June 2000 |
| Citation | 273 A.D.2d 95,710 N.Y.S.2d 325 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | QUETSY WEINER, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant. |
On July 30, 1993, claimant's former husband, John Torres, proceeding pro se, filed a violation of visitation petition in the Kings County Family Court, alleging that claimant Quetsy Weiner denied him visitation with their child on July 23, 1993. However, Torres was not in fact entitled to visitation on that day or on the weekend of July 24, 1993, pursuant to the order of visitation. Nevertheless, the Family Court petition clerk who assisted Torres merely included the allegations as made by Torres. On the strength of those allegations, an order to show cause was issued, and, ultimately, the Family Court issued a warrant for Weiner's arrest, pursuant to which she was arrested at her place of employment on August 31, 1993.
This action is based upon the claim that the Family Court employees who assisted Torres with respect to the claimed violation of visitation and submission of the petition to the warrant Judge were negligent, which negligence led to claimant's wrongful arrest. The Court of Claims held in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability, holding that the doctrine of judicial immunity does not extend to the actions of non-judicial employees. We conclude, to the contrary, that in this context the conduct of court employees cannot form the basis for any liability on the part of the State.
It is undisputed that although the Judge and her staff are ultimately responsible for ascertaining the merits of the petition, the doctrine of judicial immunity provides them with absolute protection against an action such as this. Consequently, claimant attempts to place blame for her arrest on the clerks who assisted Torres with the petition forming the basis for claimant's arrest, for failing to note the fundamental error in his assertions.
At the outset, in view of the statutory limitation on Family Court clerks who assist pro se litigants in bringing a petition (see, Family Ct Act § 216-c), the clerks' conduct, as a matter of law, cannot be faulted. Family Court Act § 216-c provides:
Pursuant to the terms of the statute, a clerk preparing a petition on behalf of a pro se petitioner is precluded from second-guessing the petitioner's allegations. As the Practice Commentary explains:
In view of the statutory prohibition against the exercise of discretion by a Family Court clerk assisting an unrepresented litigant in preparing a petition, there can be no negligence in a clerk's failure to exercise judgment in processing the matter. Moreover, we conclude that in any case the clerk's conduct must be covered by the doctrine of judicial immunity.
The normal work of a court clerk who participates in the processing of legal proceedings is generally viewed as "quasi-judicial," thereby cloaking the clerk with judicial immunity (see, Welch v State of New York, 203 AD2d 80, 81).
Concededly, it has been held by some courts that judicial immunity does not apply to "mi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lodichand v. Kogut
...to judges but to officials performing or assisting in the performance of judicial functions. In this regard, in Weiner v. State, 273 A.D.2d 95, 710 N.Y.S.2d 325 [1st Dept. 2000], the court held: Judicial immunity "applies to all acts of auxiliary court personnel that are 'basic and integral......
-
Reyes v. Hubert
...judicial function); Harley v State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 324, 324-325 [1992], appeal dismissed 81 N.Y.2d 781 [1993]; Weiner v State, 273 A.D.2d 95, 97 [1st Dept 2000]. Indeed, Defendant's assignment to Reyes v. Bogle, pursuant to the Judiciary Law and Justice Caruso's Order, is part of De......
-
Bloom v. N.Y. State Unified Court Sys.
...responsibilities are judicial in nature. Peker v. Steglich, 324 Fed. App'x 38, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Weiner v. State, 710 N.Y.S.2d 325, 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) ("The normal work of a court clerk who participates in the processing of legalproceedings is generally viewed as 'quasi-......
-
Adefunke A. v. Adeniyi A.
...statute “totally divests clerks of the power to regulate the content and filing of petitions” ( id.;see also, Weiner v. State of New York, 273 A.D.2d 95, 97, 710 N.Y.S.2d 325Allen v. Black, 275 A.D.2d 207, 209, 712 N.Y.S.2d 487). The concerns which led to the enactment of these statutory pr......