LOWMAN v. Paul North, Norm Peters and William Waszkielewicz, Defendants-Respondents.  (Appeal No. 1.) (2007)

 Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages resulting from alleged trespasses on his property by defendants Mary Dankert, the dog control officer for the Town of Collins, and William Waszkielewicz, a State Trooper, and from the arrest and prosecution of plaintiff for violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 119.   With respect to the order in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Waszkielewicz seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint (denominated petition) against him.   Waszkielewicz was authorized to enter plaintiff's property to execute the arrest warrant (see generally Hand v. Stray Haven Humane Socy. & S.P.C.A, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 626, 628, 799 N.Y.S.2d 628), and the arrest of plaintiff “pursuant to a warrant valid on its face and issued by a court having jurisdiction of the [violation] and [person] is privileged” (Boose v. City of Rochester, 71 A.D.2d 59, 66, 421 N.Y.S.2d 740;  see Johnson v. Kings County Dist. Attorney's Off., 308 A.D.2d 278, 286, 763 N.Y.S.2d 635).   The court also properly granted that part of the motion of Dankert and defendants Paul North and Norm Peters seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against North and Peters.   The acts of North and Peters were performed in the exercise of their judicial functions as town justices of the Town of Collins, and those defendants are thus immune from liability (see generally Murray v. Brancato, 290 N.Y. 52, 55, 48 N.E.2d 257;  Word v. City of Mount Vernon, 65 A.D.2d 622, 409 N.Y.S.2d 532, lv. denied 47 N.Y.2d 706, 417 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 391 N.E.2d 306).

 In appeal No. 2, plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment granting the motion of Dankert for leave to reargue the motion insofar as it sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her and, upon reargument, granting that relief.   We affirm that order and judgment.   The evidence establishes that Dankert was authorized in her capacity as dog control officer to enter plaintiff's property to serve the appearance ticket (see Hand, 21 A.D.3d at 628, 799 N.Y.S.2d 628;  Kucker v. Kaminsky & Rich, 7 A.D.3d 491, 492, 776 N.Y.S.2d 72, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 607, 785 N.Y.S.2d 24, 818 N.E.2d 666).   The evidence further establishes that “it was objectively reasonable for [Dankert] to believe that [her] conduct was appropriate under the circumstances,” and thus her conduct is subject to a qualified privilege (Baez v. City of Amsterdam, 245 A.D.2d 705, 706-707, 666 N.Y.S.2d 312, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 810, 671 N.Y.S.2d 714, 694 N.E.2d 883).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: