# Santangelo v. State

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · April 12, 1984 · 101 A.D.2d 20

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5868079

## Case

- **Full name:** Ursula Santangelo v. State of New York
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** April 12, 1984
- **Citations:** 101 A.D.2d 20; 474 N.Y.S.2d 995; 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17787
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Denman
- **Judges:** Denman, Hancock
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5868079

## Opinion text

Denman, J. (concurring).
I would affirm the judgment for reasons stated in the memorandum decision in the Court of Claims (Santangelo v State of New York, 103 Misc 2d 578 [Lowery, J.]). The majority adopts the position that all determinations made by a State functionary in the exercise of discretion are quasi-judicial and thus entitled to absolute immunity. I cannot espouse that view nor do I read Tango v Tulevech ( 61 NY2d 34 ), as requiring that we do so. If that were the import of Tango , a significant body of law recognizing the potential liability of the State for discretionary acts would be wiped out sub silentio. (See, e.g., Williams v State of New York, 308 NY 548 ; Weiss v Fote, 7 NY2d 579 ; Brownshield v State of New York, 76 AD2d 849 ; Welch v State of New York, 74 AD2d 661 ; Taylor v State of New York, 36 AD2d 878 .)
Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ., concur with Hancock, Jr., J. P.; Denman, J., concurs in an opinion.
Judgment affirmed, without costs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5868079. Public record. Not legal advice.