Zeth v. Johnson, 309 A.D.2d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Zeth v. Johnson, 309 A.D.2d 1247 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Seneca Gaming Corp. (nyappdiv, 2012-10-05)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Seneca Gaming Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although tribal immunity does not necessarily extend to individual members of the tribe (see Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v Department of Game of Wash., 433 US 165, 171 [1977]; see also Narragansett Indian Tribe v Rhode Is., 449 F3d 16, 42 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1053 [2006]), it does as a rule “extend[ ] to individual tribal officials acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority” (Zeth v Johnson, 309 AD2d 1247, 1248 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[A] tribal official — even if sued in his ‘individual capacity’ — is only ‘stripped’ o…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Seneca Gaming Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although tribal immunity does not necessarily extend to individual members of the tribe (see Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v Department of Game of Wash., 433 US 165, 171 [1977]; see also Narragansett Indian Tribe v Rhode Is., 449 F3d 16, 42 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1053 [2006]), it does as a rule “extend[ ] to individual tribal officials acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority” (Zeth v Johnson, 309 AD2d 1247, 1248 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[A] tribal official — even if sued in his ‘individual capacity’ — is only ‘stripped’ o…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." SUE/PERIOR CONCRETE & PAVING, INC. v. SENECA GAMING CORPORATION
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although tribal immunity does not necessarily extend to individual members of the tribe (see Puyallup Tribe v Department of Game of Wash., 433 US 165, 171 ; see also Narragansett Indian Tribe v Rhode Island, 449 F3d 16 , 42, cert denied 549 US 1053 ), it does as a rule “extend[] to individual tribal officials acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority” (Zeth v Johnson, 309 AD2d 1247, 1248 [internal quotation marks omitted]). “[A] tribal official - even if sued in his ‘individual capacity’ - is only ‘stripped’ of tribal immunity when he acts �…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Grace Zeth
v.
Freddie Johnson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 2, 2003.
309 A.D.2d 1247
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10130
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Nenno, J.), entered October 17, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when a snowplow operated by defendant and owned by the Seneca Nation struck the vehicle she was driving. Defendant is a member of the Mohawk Nation who resides on the Seneca Nation Reservation and it is undisputed that, at the time of the accident, he was operating the snowplow on behalf of the Seneca Nation in the course of his employment. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. “It is fundamental that Indian tribes possess sovereign immunity from suit in state and[*1248] Federal courts” (Doe v Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 278 AD2d 564, 564 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 716 [2001]; see Matter of Ransom v St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Community Fund, 86 NY2d 553, 558-559 [1995]). “The doctrine of tribal immunity ‘extends to individual tribal officials acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority’ ” (Romanella v Hayward, 933 F Supp 163, 167 [1996], affd 114 F3d 15 [1997]). “[T]ribe members, even officials, are amenable to suit if the subject of the suit is not related to the officials’ performance of official duties” (id.). Here, defendant was performing his official duties and was acting in the scope of his authority at the time of the accident, and thus defendant is entitled to the sovereign immunity of the Seneca Nation (see id. at 167-168). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.