McNamara v. State, 74 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
McNamara v. State, 74 A.D.3d 760 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Marin v. State Bar (utah, 2025-06-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marin v. State Bar
Utah · 2025 · confidence medium
Standards, 2017 WL 5515854 , at *1, 5. ¶9 Undeterred, Marin now has filed in this court a petition for extraordinary writ, in which he seeks to mount “a collateral attack” __________________________________________________________ 4 “Review of the procedures employed and the resulting determination in an attorney discipline matter is available in the [New York] Court of Appeals, and where . . . that Court has dismissed an appeal, there is a final and binding judgment in the matter.” McNamara v. State, 74 A.D.3d 760, 760 (N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Brown v. Blumenfeld
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Were he to do so, he clearly would be acting in “ ‘excess of [his] authorized powers’ ” (Matter of Lungen v Kane, 88 NY2d at 862 , quoting Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d at 569 ), because only the Appellate Division of the (n. cont’d) Supreme Court is authorized to entertain applications to discipline attorneys guilty of “professional misconduct” (Judiciary Law § 90 [2]; see McNamara v State of New York, 74 AD3d 760 [2010]; Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F2d 1205, 1209 [1972], cert denied 409 US 889 [1972]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maureen McNamara
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 1, 2010.
74 A.D.3d 760
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for alleged violations of constitutional rights in relation to an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the claimant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated July 28, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the instant claim. The authority to conduct attorney disciplinary proceedings is vested exclusively in the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court (see Judiciary Law § 90; Matter of Anonymous v Grievance Comm. of State of N.Y., 244 AD2d 549 [1997]; Erdmann v Stevens, 458 F2d 1205, 1209 [1972], cert denied 409 US 889 [1972]). Review of the procedures employed and the resulting determination in an attorney discipline matter is available in the Court of Appeals, and where, as in this case, that Court has dismissed an appeal, there is a final and binding judgment in the matter (see Zimmerman v Grievance Comm. of Fifth Jud. Dist. of State of N.Y., 726 F2d 85, 86 [1984], cert denied 467 US 1227 [1984]). The claimant cannot collaterally attack the judgment by asserting a damages claim in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act § 9; Napolitano v New York State Grievance Comm., 8 Misc 3d 1007[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 50982[U] [2005], affd on other grounds 33 AD3d 979 [2006]).

[*761] In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.