Opinion
# 2011-031-504 Claim No. 112923
06-30-2011
CHRISTOPHER SUTHERLAND v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant failed to demonstrate that Defendant was negligent relating to assault upon him by other inmates. Case information
UID: 2011-031-504 Claimant(s): CHRISTOPHER SUTHERLAND Claimant short name: SUTHERLAND Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 112923 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK Claimant's attorney: CHRISTOPHER SUTHERLAND, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: BY: BONNIE GAIL LEVY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: June 30, 2011 City: Rochester Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant Christopher Sutherland filed claim 112923 on October 25, 2006, alleging that on September 27, 2006, Correction Officers at Auburn Correctional Facility (Auburn) failed to adequately supervise the television area (or upper area) of Auburn's south recreation yard. This lack of supervision allegedly lead to a prolonged attack by two inmates, during which time Mr. Sutherland was repeatedly stabbed. I conducted the video-assisted trial of this matter on April 28, 2011.
Claimant testified that at approximately 4:50 p.m. on September 27, 2006, he was in Auburn's south yard watching television when he was suddenly stabbed in the back of the head by an unknown inmate.
Mr. Sutherland stated that, once the attack began, he ran to the nearest guard post for help, but the post was unmanned and he saw no other Correction Officers in the vicinity. During this struggle, Claimant and his assailant fell down a staircase near the television. Mr. Sutherland further testified that, shortly after the assault began, a second inmate joined in the assault upon him. Claimant testified that he attempted to defend himself from his attackers for approximately 5-10 minutes before Correction Officers intervened and broke up the fight.
On cross-examination, Mr. Sutherland admitted that an inmate misbehavior report had been filed against him for fighting at the time of the attack. He also confirmed that during his Tier Three Disciplinary Hearing, he admitted to having fought in the south yard but said nothing of the fight occurring out of self-defense. Claimant also confirmed that he refused protective custody after the incident because he did not feel his life was in danger.
Defendant called Correction Officer Mark Arria to testify. Officer Arria was on duty the day of the incident and was posted in the south yard at the time of the assault. Contrary to Claimant's testimony, Officer Arria testified that there were three posts near the area where Claimant was attacked and that all three posts were properly manned at the time of the attack. Officer Arria further stated that he was posted in an area 20 - 25 yards from the incident. He testified that he witnessed the entire attack and he did not see Claimant make any attempt to get help from Correction Officers, as he had testified. Officer Arria stated that he reacted immediately and that, within 15 - 20 seconds, he had reached the inmates and ordered them to separate and stop fighting.
The State also called Lieutenant Michael Ouimette to testify. Lieutenant Ouimette testified that, at the time of the attack, officers in the yard were preparing to return the inmates to their cells, but that a guard was always posted in the upper yard, where the incident occurred. He testified that Correction Officers are assigned to posts but, for security reasons, do not always stay in one location. They are required to move from area to area depending on where they are needed.
Annette Boyd, a nurse at Auburn, also testified for Defendant. Nurse Boyd testified that she saw Claimant on the day of the incident to evaluate his injuries. She stated that Claimant did incur puncture wounds and lacerations in the altercation. His wounds were cleaned and bandaged. Nurse Boyd sent Claimant to Auburn Memorial Hospital for evaluation of a puncture wound near his carotid artery. Claimant did not receive stitches but he was given antibiotic ointment and Motrin for pain. His wounds were not life threatening.
The State is required to use reasonable care to protect the inmates of its correctional facilities from foreseeable risks of harm (Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342) including the foreseeable risk of attack by other inmates (Dizak v State of New York, 124 AD2d 329; Sebastiano v State of New York, 112 AD2d 562). The State is not, however, an insurer of the safety of its inmates (Padgett v State of New York, 163 AD2d 914, lv denied 767 NY2d 711; Casella v State of New York, 121 AD2d 495), and negligence will not be inferred from the mere happening of an incident (Mochen v State of New York, 57 AD2d 719; Van Barneveld v State of New York, 35 AD2d 900). In claims arising from inmate assaults, the central issue is whether the State had notice of the risk of harm and had an opportunity to intervene in a way that would have prevented the assault, but failed to do so (Huertas v State of New York, 84 AD2d 650). In Sanchez v State of New York (99 NY2d 247), the Court of appeals explained that the State can be liable if the assault upon an inmate was reasonably foreseeable and the State failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the assault.
In this instance, there was no such notice. Claimant did not know his assailant. The assault was sudden and without warning. Even Claimant was taken completely by surprise. Accordingly, unremitting supervision was unnecessary (see Hirsh v State of New York, 8 NY2d 125; Padgett v State of New York, 163 AD2d 914; Carlino v State of New York, 30 AD2d 987, 988).
Further, I credit Officer Arria's testimony that he reacted promptly and appropriately to separate the inmates within seconds of the fight breaking out. For these reasons, I find that Claimant has failed to demonstrate that Defendant was negligent in any way relating to the assault and the injuries he sustained as a result.
Accordingly, Claim No. 112923 is hereby DISMISSED.
Any and all other motions on which the Court may have previously reserved or which were not previously determined, are hereby denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
June 30, 2011
Rochester, New York
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims