public official immunity in New York

2007Consequently, the automatic disbarment provision of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) took effect, and the disbarment automatically took place upon entry of the guilty plea, not, as respondent would have it, upon his sentencing (see Matter of Kourland, 172 AD2d 77 [1991]; Matter of Lee, 25 AD3d 51 [2005]).

2007Consequently, the automatic disbarment provision of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) took effect, and the disbarment automatically took place upon entry of the guilty plea, not, as respondent would have it, upon his sentencing (see Matter of Kourland, 172 AD2d 77 [1991]; Matter of Lee, 25 AD3d 51 [2005]).

2007His bribery of a public official in violation of 18 USC § 201 (b) was an offense which, if committed within New York, would constitute a violation of bribery in the third degree (Penal Law § 200.00), a class D felony (see Matter of Phillips, 100 AD2d 69 [1984], citing Matter of Kaufman [W.], 46 AD2d 489 [1975]).

2007His bribery of a public official in violation of 18 USC § 201 (b) was an offense which, if committed within New York, would constitute a violation of bribery in the third degree (Penal Law § 200.00), a class D felony (see Matter of Phillips, 100 AD2d 69 [1984], citing Matter of Kaufman [W.], 46 AD2d 489 [1975]).

1987(Matter of Posner v Rockefeller, 33 AD2d 314 .) Supervisor Congdon contends that Tax Law § 1262 (c) affects his duties as the Town Supervisor, because it interferes with his power as Treasurer of the town to "demand, collect, receive and have the care and custody of moneys belonging to or due the town from every source, except as otherwise provided by law”.

1984Suffice it to say that the report criticizes a public servant for errors in judgment respecting the transmittal of documents (see Matter of Reports of Grand Jury No. 1 of County of Monroe, 71 AD2d 1060 ; Matter of South Mall Financing, 69 Mise 2d 460, 463), and with regard to the events of February 25,1983, also holds the public official to a standard of conduct not established by statute or precedent (see Matter of Report of Special Grand Jury of County of Monroe Empanelled February 14,1978, 77 AD2d 199, 204).

1979(Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373 , affd 15 NY2d 831 .) Though historically and most commonly applied to acts of Judges (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 ; Lange v Benedict, 73 NY 12 , writ of error dsmd 99 US 68 ; see, also, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ), the immunity has, however, been extended to legislators (East Riv.

1979(Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373 , affd 15 NY2d 831 .) Though historically and most commonly applied to acts of Judges (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 ; Lange v Benedict, 73 NY 12 , writ of error dsmd 99 US 68 ; see, also, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ), the immunity has, however, been extended to legislators (East Riv.

1979(Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373 , affd 15 NY2d 831 .) Though historically and most commonly applied to acts of Judges (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 ; Lange v Benedict, 73 NY 12 , writ of error dsmd 99 US 68 ; see, also, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ), the immunity has, however, been extended to legislators (East Riv.

1979(Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373 , affd 15 NY2d 831 .) Though historically and most commonly applied to acts of Judges (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 ; Lange v Benedict, 73 NY 12 , writ of error dsmd 99 US 68 ; see, also, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ), the immunity has, however, been extended to legislators (East Riv.

1979(Rottkamp v Young, 21 AD2d 373 , affd 15 NY2d 831 .) Though historically and most commonly applied to acts of Judges (see Murray v Brancato, 290 NY 52 ; Lange v Benedict, 73 NY 12 , writ of error dsmd 99 US 68 ; see, also, Stump v Sparkman, 435 US 349 ), the immunity has, however, been extended to legislators (East Riv.

1975As was stated in Garrison v. Louisiana ( 379 U. S. 64, 77 ): “ The public-official rule protects the paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials, their servants.

1945Fletcher v. Naumann, 213 Iowa 418, 431 .) The late President Eoosevelt, as Governor of this State, expressed this rule, in a proceeding for the removal of a sheriff, in these words, “Asa matter of general sound public policy, I am very certain that there is a requirement that where a public official is under inquiry or investigation, especially an elected public official, and it appears that his scale of living or the total of Ms bank deposits far exceeds the public salary which he is known to receive, he, the elected public official, owes a positive public duty to the community to give a reas