Opinion
# 2016-040-038 Claim No. 126418 Motion No. M-88156
06-02-2016
ERIC CLAUDIO, DIN: 97-A-2188 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Eric Claudio, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Pro se Claimant's motion for summary judgment denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-038 |
| Claimant(s): | ERIC CLAUDIO, DIN: 97-A-2188 |
| Claimant short name: | CLAUDIO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126418 |
| Motion number(s): | M-88156 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Eric Claudio, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 2, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's motion to strike the State's Answer and for partial summary judgment in his favor is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on July 9, 2015, alleges that, on January 17, 2015, Claimant was confined to his cell at Eastern NY Correctional Facility and that he was issued a misbehavior report the following day charging him with using a controlled substance. A Superintendent's Hearing was commenced on January 23, 2015, and Claimant was found guilty of the charges on February 3, 2015. Claimant filed an administrative appeal of the hearing officer's determination on March 2, 2015. The Hearing Officer's determination was reversed on April 28, 2015 and all records ordered expunged. Claimant seeks compensation for an alleged wrongful confinement.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly and only where no material issue of fact is demonstrated in the papers related to the motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93, 94 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965], affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion be supported by "available proof." "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra at 853).
The Court finds that Claimant failed to make the required prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In Arteaga v State of New York (72 NY2d 212 [1988]), the Court of Appeals held that the State had absolute immunity from liability in the area of prison discipline when its employees act under the authority of and in full compliance with the statutes and regulations, and their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature. When a prison disciplinary hearing is not conducted in accordance with governing rules and regulations, the cloak of absolute immunity is removed and liability may result (Mabry v State of New York, UID No. 2008-029-064 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Dec. 22, 2008]; Brown v State of New York, UID No. 2008-010-038 [Ct Cl, Ruderman, J., Oct. 6, 2008]; Diaz v State of New York, UID No. 2006-036-008 [ Ct Cl, Schweitzer, J., June 20, 2006]; Mabry v State of New York, UID No. 2001-013-514 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 31, 2001]).
To establish a cause of action for wrongful confinement, which is a form of false imprisonment, a Claimant must establish that: (1) Defendant intended to confine him; (2) Claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) Claimant did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]; Middleton v State of New York, 54 AD2d 450, 451 [3d Dept 1976], affd 43 NY 2d 678 [1977]). It is not disputed that Claimant was confined, was conscious of the confinement and did not consent. Thus, the issue is whether the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
In support of his motion, Claimant has submitted an affidavit that mirrors his Claim. Claimant makes several assertions regarding why he believes the disciplinary hearing was not conducted in accordance with governing rules and regulations. He states that his employee assistant was ineffective, but does not state how the employee assistant was ineffective, or how Defendant failed to comply with 7 NYCRR § 251-4.2 (Inmate Assistant). Next, he alleges that the hearing officer was not a fair and impartial fact-finder, and failed to take curative measures when Claimant made objections during the hearing. However, he fails to state how the hearing failed to comply with 7 NYCRR § 250.2 (General policies on discipline of inmates). In addition, Claimant alleges that the misbehavior report was defective on its face and was not prepared in compliance with 7 NYCRR § 251-3.1 (Misbehavior Reports). However, he does not particularize how the misbehavior report was defective. Finally, Claimant alleges that he was denied a representative from the manufacturer of the drug testing company as a witness in violation of 7 NYCRR § 254.5 (Inmate witnesses). However, he fails to establish that he ever requested a representative from the manufacturer of the drug testing company to testify as a witness, or that the representative agreed to testify.
As Claimant has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case, his motion for summary judgment is denied.
June 2, 2016
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's motion for summary judgment: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affidavit & Exhibits attached 1 Affirmation in Opposition & Exhibits attached 2 Claimant's Reply 3 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer