THE GEORGE SASSOWER, ESQ. LEGACY PROJECT --
Was he correct, on
the facts & on the law?
APPEALED-FROM June 26,
1985 Order
of NY S.Ct Justice KLEIN
Appellate
Division, First Dept
Sassower's July 15, 1985 Brief & Appendix
Sassower's August 22, 1985 Reply Brief --
pp. 9-14 --
1st Dept's July 29, 1985 Order, People ex rel. Sassower v.
Cunningham
(Sullivan,
J.P., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.),
identifying its assertion "The papers submitted to
not demonstrate any basis to conclude
that the detention
was illegal", as "abandoning all of history's civilized
value"
& "Repeatedly
and incorrectly...stat[ing]
"that the Order(s) of Mr. Justice Gammerman, were
not appealed."
"The
fact is that these Orders of Mr. Justice Gammerman were
immediately perfected for apellate review, but such review
has been stonewalled by this Court's own Orders of May 29,
1985 (#M-1809) and #M-1875) and the failure of nis prius to
comply with the mandatory provisions contained therein."
...
"This Court...made the irrelevant, gratuitous, and
highly improper comment:
"It
unquestionably appears from the papers submitted that
there have been flagrant violations of the injunction
contained in the prior order of Justice Gammerman, entered
January 26 [sic], 1985"... and
"as far as appears, it
[the Order of Mr. Justice Gammerman] is a valid order
binding on the petitioner [Sam Polur, Esq., who was
not a participant in that
proceeding, and without standing to appeal]"
Appellate Division, First Dept's Sept 17, 1985
affirmance #24069 -- KLEIN
NY
Court of Appeals
Sassower's September 20, 1985 Notice of Appeal
Sassower's September 24, 1985 Jurisdictional Statement
Court of Appeals' October 2, 1985 sua sponte
jurisdictional inquiry
November 21, 1985 order dismissing the appeal,
66
N.Y.2d 914, 915
,
* * *
LaPier v. Deyo, 100 AD2d 710 (1984) -- cited to
at p. 5 of appeal brief
"Judicial immunity is lost when a Judge acts in clear
absence of jurisdiction (Stump
v Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-356; Sassower
v Finnerty, 96 A.D.2d 585, 586).
Section 14 Jud. of the Judiciary Law forbids a Judge..., and
a decision rendered in violation of section 14 is void (Oakley
v Aspinwall, 3 N.Y. 547; Casterella
v Casterella, 65 A.D.2d 614).
We hold, as a matter of law, that defendant Ernest Deyo was
not entitled to judicial immunity for the actions which
plaintiff has alleged in his complaint."
SUCCESSION OF AD1 ORDERS
April 4, 1985 -- M-993
(Sandler, Asch, Fein, Milonas)
May 14, 1985 -- M-2152
(Sandler, Ross, Bloom, Milonas, Ellerin)
May 29, 1985 (#M-1809)
May 29, 1985 (#M-1875)
July 29, 1985 #23984 (M-3583)
(Sullivan, Ross, Milonas,
Kassal, Rosenberger)
September 17, 1985 Klein #34069
(Kupferman, Sullivan, Ross,
Fein, Rosenberger)
September 17, 1985 Saxe #34070
(Kupferman, Sullivan, Ross,
Rein, Rosenberger)
September 24, 1985 #24182 [M-3305]
(Kupferman, Ross, Carro, Fein,
Ellerin)
October 24, 1985 -- M-4266
(Kupferman, Carro, Asch, Fein,
Ellerin)
113
A.D.2d 1038
