Opinion
# 2016-040-007 Claim No. 125418-A Motion No. M-87549 Cross-Motion No. CM-87647
01-28-2016
QHASHON MILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Qhashon Miller, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment denied. Defendant's cross-motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-040-007 |
| Claimant(s): | QHASHON MILLER |
| Claimant short name: | MILLER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125418-A |
| Motion number(s): | M-87549 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-87647 |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Qhashon Miller, 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: | January 28, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, pro se Claimant's Motion for summary judgment in his favor, pursuant to CPLR 3212(a), is denied and Defendant's Cross-Motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (7) on the basis that the Claim fails to state a valid cause of action against the Defendant is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on December 18, 2014, alleges that: on March 12, 2014 at Eastern NY Correctional Facility, located in Napanoch, New York, Claimant was ordered by a correction officer (hereinafter, "CO") to submit a urine sample; on March 13, 2014 another CO tested the specimen twice and that the tests were positive for cannabinoids (THC) ; Claimant was issued a misbehavior report charging him with violating prison rules prohibiting drug use and he was placed in keeplock confinement (see Claim, ¶ 8 and Ex. B attached thereto). A Superintendent's Hearing was commenced on March 20, 2014, and Claimant was found guilty of the charges on March 23, 2014 (Claim, ¶ 8). Claimant filed an administrative appeal on March 24, 2014 (id. and Ex. D attached thereto). Upon review, the Hearing Officer's determination was reversed on May 27, 2014 (Claim, ¶ 8 and Ex. E attached). The Claim asserts that Defendant was negligent in performing the urinalysis tests and did not properly operate the testing apparatus (Claim, ¶¶ 6, 7 and 18).
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 a motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93 [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]).
7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(a) provides:
(a) Where an inmate is confined pending a disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing, the hearing must be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable following the inmate's initial confinement pending said disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing, but, in no event may it be commenced beyond seven days of said confinement without authorization of the commissioner or his designee.
Claimant asserts in his response to Defendant's Cross-Motion for summary judgment that the hearing officer's decision was reversed as his hearing was not commenced in a timely manner. The memorandum, dated May 27, 2014, from Albert Prack, Director of Special Housing/Inmate Discipline, to the Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility regarding this matter states that the Date of Incident was March 13, 2014 and the Date of Hearing was March 21, 2014. This would be eight days after the incident and Claimant's confinement to keeplock commenced (see Claimant's Reply to Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion and Ex. A attached thereto).
However, Claimant states in his Claim (¶ 8) and in his affidavit submitted in support of his Motion (¶ 6) that the hearing officer commenced his hearing on March 20, 2014 (see Ex. B attached to State's Motion and Ex. B attached to Claimant's Reply [Superintendent Hearing Disposition Rendered Form stating the hearing started on March 20, 2014]; Ex. E attached to State's Motion [Hearing Transcript]). In addition, Claimant asserts that the hearing concluded and he was found guilty on March 23, 2014 (Claim, ¶ 8 and Affidavit in Support of Motion, ¶ 7). However, the Hearing Disposition Form referenced above records that the hearing was completed on March 21, 2014 (Ex. B attached to State's Motion and Ex. B attached to Claimant's Reply).
While the Hearing Officer's determination at Claimant's Superintendent's Hearing appears to have been administratively reversed based upon untimely commencement of the hearing, that determination is not binding upon this Court. The Court finds that, based upon the evidence submitted by the parties, a material question of fact exists as to when the Superintendent's Hearing began (March 20, or March 21, 2014), and, thus, whether the governing rules and regulations were followed.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the hearing was untimely commenced, Claimant did not establish entitlement to summary judgment. Removal of the absolute immunity articulated in Arteaga is not, per se, sufficient to establish liability. Claimant must still establish the merits of his Claim; i.e., "that if [D]efendant had properly complied with its rules and regulations, the outcome of the hearing would have been different and [C]laimant would not have been wrongfully confined or suffered damages" (McKinney v State of New York, UID No. 2008-044-589 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Nov. 20, 2008]; Mabry v State of New York, supra; see also Brown v State of New York, supra). Claimant has not established that, if Defendant had complied with the regulation at issue, the outcome of the disciplinary hearing would have been different. Without such evidence, Claimant has failed to meet his burden on this Motion (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra). Claimant has failed to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, as a question of fact exists as to when the Superintendent's Hearing was commenced, both the Motion for summary judgment and Cross-Motion for dismissal are denied.
January 28, 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 and Defendant's Cross-Motion to Dismiss: Papers Numbered Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support and Exhibits attached 1 Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits attached 2 Claimant's Reply to State's Cross-Motion and Exhibits attached 3 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer