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