Opinion
# 2015-040-016 Claim No. 125034 Motion No. M-86015
04-06-2015
DARREL OLDHAM v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Darrel Oldham, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment denied as he failed to include the pleadings with his motion. He also failed to establish the Hearing Officer violated DOCCS' regulations at the disciplinary hearing.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-040-016 |
| Claimant(s): | DARREL OLDHAM |
| Claimant short name: | OLDHAM |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125034 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86015 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Darrel Oldham, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 6, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's motion for partial summary judgment in his favor is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on September 25, 2014, alleges a cause of action for wrongful confinement, which arose at Franklin Correctional Facility located in Malone, New York ("Franklin").
The Claim asserts that Claimant was wrongfully confined for a period of 22 days. Claimant alleges that, on May 27, 2014, he was issued a misbehavior report, charging him with violating three specific prison rules, on May 25, 2014 that was signed by a correction officer. A disciplinary hearing was commenced on May 29, 2014 and Claimant requested that a witness appear and testify, and the Hearing Officer denied his request without a reason being offered for the refusal (Claim, ¶ 5). Claimant was found guilty of the charges at a Tier II disciplinary hearing (id., ¶ 8). Claimant asserts that he was denied due process at the Tier II hearing because of the failure to present the witness or explain why the witness was refused (id., ¶ 7). Claimant filed an administrative appeal and, on June 14, 2014, was advised that the hearing officer's determination had been modified by reducing the length of the penalties imposed (id., ¶ 10). Claimant asserts that he filed an Article 78 petition on July 8, 2014, challenging the determination (id., ¶ 11) and that, on September 16, 2014, he received a memorandum from the Franklin superintendent informing him that the May 25, 2014 incident was expunged and removed from his disciplinary file (id., ¶ 13).
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 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965], affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). CPLR 3212(b) requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by a copy of the pleadings (Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338 [1974]). In support of his motion, Claimant did not submit a copy of the Claim or Answer. He only submitted a copy his Notice of Intention to File a Claim. The failure to include all the pleadings in support of a motion for summary judgment requires that the motion be denied, regardless of the merits of the motion (Senor v State of New York, 23 AD3d 851 [3d Dept 2005]; Bonded Concrete, Inc. v Town of Saugerties, 3 AD3d 729 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793 [2004]; Deer Park Assocs. v Robbins Store, 243 AD2d 443 [2d Dept 1997]; CPLR 3212[b]).
CPLR 3212(b) also requires that the 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 a 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).
However, assuming, arguendo, that Claimant had supported his motion by including a copy of all the pleadings, the Court further 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]). Here, Claimant asserts that the State did not follow the rules and regulations by not providing the witness he wanted to testify or providing the reason he did not testify. Claimant has failed to submit any proof as to the reason the hearing officer's determination was expunged. Thus, he has failed to establish that Defendant violated the rules and regulations governing the disciplinary process. Claimant has failed to establish that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Claimant's motion for summary judgment in his favor is denied.
April 6, 2015
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
Filed Papers: Claim, Answer