individual capacity except Cunningham, who is named only in his official capacity. The Complaint alleges that plaintiffs’ employment was terminated by implementation of the 1992 Town budget. (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 49.) The Town Board members move to dismiss the complaint against them in all respects, asserting legislative immunity from suit. (Municipal Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, hereinafter “Mun.Defs.’ Mem. of Law” at 21.) The common-law doctrine of official immunity governs civil liability for public servants acting in their legislative capacity. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 446 U.S. 719, 731-32, 100 S.Ct. 1967, 1974, 64 L.Ed.2d 641 (1980) (citing Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019 (1951) (<HOLDING>)); see also Star Distributors, Ltd. v. Marino,
holding that state law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators has no application to suits under  1983 holding that state legislators are absolutely from suit under  1983 for actions in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity recognizing legislative immunity of state legislators in  1983 suits for both damage and equitable relief holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that damage remedies in  1983 suits are determined by looking first to the common law of torts both modern and as of 1871