Wik v. Kunego

Civil Rights

New York Law Journal


Judge Charles Siragusa

Defendant Kunego is a town court justice. In connection with Wik's pro se April 2011 complaint alleging violation of 42 USC §1983 and other federal statutes, district court granted Kunego summary judgment dismissing Wik's claims that Kunego was unqualified to act as a town justice presiding over criminal charges pending against Wik. District court denied Wik reconsideration. It rejected his claim that Kunego lacked jurisdiction to restrain his liberty because the accusatory instrument that Kunego used as the basis for his jurisdiction over Wik was eventually found facially insufficient and dismissed by the state's appellate court. Citing the Supreme Court's 1978 ruling in Stump v. Sparkman, district court also rejected Wik's assertion that Kunego acted merely as an administrator of New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law, and thus was not acting as a court and was not entitled to absolute judicial immunity. District court ordered Wik to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for violating language in its prior order warning that continued frivolous applications—maintaining nonsensical arguments that the district court is not a "Constitutional Article 3" court—may be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202591117787

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.