Opinion
No. 119045.
04-02-2015
Alvin TORRES, Claimant(s) v. STATE of New York, Defendant(s).
Robert Dembia, P.C., by Robert Dembia, Esq., for Claimant's. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, by Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG, for Defendant's.
Robert Dembia, P.C., by Robert Dembia, Esq., for Claimant's.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, by Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG, for Defendant's.
Opinion
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY, J.
The Court previously granted Claimant's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that Mr. Torres was unlawfully confined from October 8, 2009 to March 26, 2010 and that Defendant is liable to Claimant both for the periods he served in prison as well as excessive restrictions he suffered while under parole supervision. The Court concluded that the Department of Correctional Services (hereinafter, “DOCS” ) incarcerated Claimant improperly beyond the maximum expiration date of his sentence because it failed to credit him with the proper amount of parole jail time credit to which he was entitled (see Torres v. State of New York, 41 Misc.3d 1227[A] [Ct Cl 2013] ). Claimant should have been released from the jurisdiction of the Division of Parole on October 7, 2009 and, therefore, was incorrectly: (1) incarcerated from October 8, 2009 to November 23, 2009; (2) subjected to parole supervision from November 24, 2009 to January 10, 2010; and (3) incarcerated from January 11, 2010 to March 26, 2010.
Effective April 2011, the Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole were merged to form the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).
A trial limited to the issue of Claimant's damages was held on September 30, 2014 at the Court of Claims in Albany, New York. Claimant was the only witness. Thereafter, the parties were granted additional time to submit post-trial memoranda.
Claimant was 29 years old at the time of trial and lives in The Bronx, New York with his mother and two sisters. He has an eleventh-grade education and works as a parking coordinator for Consolidated Edison.
Mr. Torres was held at DOCS' Queensboro Correctional Facility (“Queensboro”) from October 8, 2009 until he became subject to parole supervision on November 24, 2009. He was arrested at his home for violating the terms of his parole and sent to the Rikers Island facilities of the New York City Department of Correction (“Rikers”) on January 11, 2010, where he was incarcerated until March 26, 2010. His dormitory at Queensboro consisted of a cramped sleeping area, with 52 bunk beds that were spaced two or three feet apart, that housed 104 inmates. At Rikers, the dorm was smaller, with 50 inmates assigned to single beds. Mr. Torres said that the room at Queensboro sometimes smelled like a gymnasium or locker room because some inmates practiced poor hygiene. At Rikers, he wore street clothes while in the dormitory which he had to wash by hand with a cake of soap and water in a bucket and then hang to dry on a makeshift clothesline attached to his bed. Mr. Torres also described one of the inmates at Rikers, who appeared to be normal during the day, but who was prone to sleepwalk at night, during which episodes he would attack other inmates and attempt to choke them. Claimant feared that he might be one of the inmates choked by the sleepwalker.
He also noted that all the inmates at Queensboro had release dates. By contrast, none of the offenders at Rikers had release dates and many had long remaining terms of incarceration. As a result, he said that some of the inmates at Rikers “really don't care about anything” with the result that, whether it was fighting, gangs controlling life in the dorms, theft, intimidation, or extortion, in each case there were more problems at Rikers even though he was housed with twice as many inmates at Queensboro.
All quotations not otherwise attributed are from the electronic recording of the trial and/or the Court's notes.
The crowded conditions and difficult personalities sometimes led to conflicts among the inmates. He said that groups or gangs of inmates informally ran the dormitories in each place, and stole from and bullied weaker inmates. Gangs also practiced what Mr. Torres called “sweet extortion” in which a gang member, rather than steal outright, would seemingly befriend another inmate only to begin making coercive requests/demands that the other inmate felt obliged to grant.
He was concerned when other inmates “grilled” him, staring intensely at him in order to intimidate him or provoke a fight, including, in particular, when he was grilled by one of the inmates who appeared to run his dorm at Rikers. Claimant felt unsafe, tried to avoid that inmate, whom Mr. Torres described as “the main bully” there, and stayed as far away from him as possible. Mr. Torres said that, as an inmate that was not affiliated with a gang, he felt at risk of being outnumbered and attacked. Mr. Torres also said that bigger, stronger inmates could target smaller men, adding “I'm not a big guy I don't have an intimidating look.”
Claimant saw inmate fights at both facilities, which took place in the dormitories, bathrooms, and mess halls. Some of those fights appeared to be gang-related. Mr. Torres saw that some inmates had homemade contraband weapons so that he feared being cut or stabbed. He thought he remembered one particular fight at Queensboro, but could not provide any details. At Rikers, he saw an inmate hit in the back of the head with a meal tray. He said there was a fight or two in the mess hall every week.
Mr. Torres said that he had only a limited ability to speak with his family on the telephone while he was incarcerated. At Rikers, his family put money into an account that he could access by means of a personal identification number (“PIN”) to call home from a public telephone. Gangs controlled access to the phone, however, and sometimes would not let Mr. Torres use it, especially in the evening. Some inmate(s) also stole Claimant's PIN and depleted the funds in his account so that he could not make calls. At Queensboro, by contrast, inmates were only permitted to make collect telephone calls and his family was unable to arrange to accept them so that Claimant was unable to speak with his family between face-to-face visits.
Claimant said that he worried about getting sick from the communal bathroom facilities the inmates shared at each prison. He said the bathrooms could get very dirty at times because of the poor hygiene of some inmates, as well as heavy traffic. Mr. Torres said that he had to be quick using the bathroom at Queensboro on account of the large number of inmates jostling to use the facilities. At Rikers, there was no privacy because there were no stalls to separate the row of five toilets. Also, on at least one occasion there, he saw two inmates engaged in a sex act in the bathroom.
The daily routine at each prison followed a regimented schedule common to correctional facilities. Meals were rushed with, for example, only eight to ten minutes allowed for breakfast at Queensboro. No talking was permitted in the mess hall. Between meals, there was a lot of down time with little to do aside from watch TV, go to recreation or the law library, or sit on one's bed. “One day would feel like a year in there and it felt like it was never going to end.” Claimant said that he wrote many letters seeking to be released from prison. He said he was “tired of dealing with these inmates, of being around these people. I felt like I was done with this time already and I'm still here.”
Mr. Torres said that he avoided getting hurt during the periods of incarceration in question by changing his personality completely. He felt that he could not be friendly or chatty because some inmates took marks of kindness as signs of weakness. Therefore, he “shut down,” projected a serious, quiet air, kept to himself, avoided talking to strangers, and did not open up to other inmates at Queensboro. While at Rikers, he said he was “just trying to do my time and leave.” He worked out with one other inmate while at Queensboro, but did not really trust even this individual. Mr. Torres would do 200 pull-ups and 1,000 sit-ups each day, five days per week. He worked out so much to relieve stress he felt about the error in his maximum expiration date and so that he could sleep at night. Mr. Torres said that he was strip-searched after each of his nearly weekly visits with his mother but, nevertheless, credited those meetings as the thing that helped him get through that period. All in all, Claimant remembered being sad, anxious, and fearful when he was held past his maximum expiration date.
By contrast, Mr. Torres said that “there's nothing like home. You're free.” He preferred to be at home with his family instead of in prison with strangers. At home, he has his own bedroom with privacy and a clean bathroom that he can use at his leisure. He can enjoy convivial family meals, watch the television programs he chooses, and has a cell phone that he can use freely. Mr. Torres said that he has an outgoing personality. He likes to visit with his children and/or friends, make trips to the beach, go bowling, and shoot pool. Claimant said that he helps his mother, who has a heart condition, with shopping and household chores. He also said that, during the time period of his wrongful confinement, he would have helped his father in his welding business and a friend (whose last name he could not recall) who works as a cook.
Mr. Torres was released to parole supervision on November 24, 2009. He lived at home with his mother while he was on parole. Although no longer incarcerated, Claimant had to observe a number of restrictions on his liberty (see Ex. 1 which enumerates the conditions of Claimant's release). Mr. Torres testified that he was not permitted to leave New York State. He was subject to a 9 p.m. curfew, as well as surprise visits to his home by parole officers. He was obliged to meet with his parole officer every Tuesday and was required to provide urine samples in the presence of the officer so that drug tests could be administered. He could not associate with anyone with a criminal record, frequent bars, or drive an automobile without permission. He was arrested for violating the terms of his parole because he allegedly assaulted his girlfriend, a charge which he denied at the trial of this Claim.
Mr. Torres agreed that he pleaded guilty in connection with a charge of grand larceny. In 2006, he was sentenced on separate convictions to two indeterminate terms of incarceration of one-and-one-third-year-to-four-years to run concurrently (see Torres v. State of New York, 41 Misc.3d 1227[A], supra ). Claimant was released to parole supervision several times, but subsequently arrested for violating the conditions of his parole (see id. ). He also pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced, in 2008, to a one-year local jail sentence to run concurrent to his parole time (see id. ). Mr. Torres further agreed that he had been incarcerated at Rikers on numerous occasions prior to January 2010, for periods lasting as long as several months at a time (see Ex. 2). He also agreed, as a result, that he was familiar with Rikers and how it operated, although he added that did not mean that he was comfortable with it. Mr. Torres further agreed that he was not physically assaulted during the periods of incarceration at Queensboro and Rikers that are at issue in this Claim, and he did not seek medical or psychological care either while he was in prison, or subsequent to his release, that relates to that time in prison.
LAW
“As a general rule, the measure of damages for [wrongful] confinement is such a sum as will fairly and reasonably compensate the injured person for injuries caused by the defendant's wrongful act” (Hallenbeck v. City of Albany, 99 A.D.2d 639, 640, 472 N.Y.S.2d 187 [3d Dept 1984] ; Woodard v. City of Albany, 81 A.D.2d 947, 947, 439 N.Y.S.2d 701 [3d Dept 1981] ; accord Miller v. State of New York, 46 Misc.3d 1212[A], *3 [Ct Cl 2013] ). “Such damages may include noneconomic damages for mental anguish and economic damages for loss of earnings, as well as noneconomic damages for the loss of liberty during a period of unlawful confinement” (Sanabria v. State of New York, 29 Misc.3d 988, 993, 908 N.Y.S.2d 527 [Ct Cl 2010] [internal citation omitted]; see Emanuele v. State of New York, 43 Misc.2d 135, 140, 250 N.Y.S.2d 361 [Ct Cl 1964] ). “The mental anguish suffered by an inmate while he is in prison encompasses his discomfort, fear, lack of privacy and degradation” (Baba–Ali v. State of New York, 24 Misc.3d 576, 581–582, 878 N.Y.S.2d 555 [Ct Cl 2009], aff'd in part, revd in part 76 A.D.3d 940, 907 N.Y.S.2d 432 [2d Dept 2010], aff'd as modified 19 N.Y.3d 627 [2012] ), and “[d]amages attributable to loss of liberty include damages for the loss of the fundamental right to be free, lost opportunities to engage in everyday activities while confined, and for the mental anguish that accompanies the loss of liberty” (Sanabria v. State of New York, 29 Misc.3d, supra at 994 ).
“The inherently factual finding of [noneconomic damages] is generally left to a [factfinder's] common sense and judgment in light of its common knowledge and experience and with due regard to the evidence presented at trial, including the demeanor and testimony of all witnesses' “ (Apuzzo v. Ferguson, 20 A.D.3d 647, 648, 798 N.Y.S.2d 537 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Murphy v. Lewry, 235 A.D.2d 968, 969, 653 N.Y.S.2d 417 [3d Dept 1997] [internal citation omitted] ). In assessing the amount of a damage award, “[i]t is proper for a court to look at other similar cases to determine what would be a reasonable award” (Jackson v. State of New York, UID No.2009–038–105 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Dec. 21, 2009] ). “Notably, there are few reported cases involving an award of damages arising from confinement in a State facility beyond an inmate's [maximum expiration] date” (Ifill v. State of New York, UID No.2014–039–436 [Ct Cl, Ferreira, J., Jan. 22, 2015] ). In addition, flat rate, or per unit, assessments of damages are generally “inappropriate given the variations in and between each individual's circumstances and course of imprisonment” (Carter v. State of New York, 139 Misc.2d 423, 430, 528 N.Y.S.2d 292 [Ct Cl 1988], affd 154 A.D.2d 642, 546 N.Y.S.2d 648 [2d Dept 1989] ). Moreover, “claimant's criminal history and previous experience with incarceration—as compared to a claimant with an unblemished record—is properly considered on the issue of claimed mental anguish” (Jackson v. State of New York, supra; see Sanabria v. State of New York, supra at 994, 908 N.Y.S.2d 527 ; Carter v. State of New York, supra at 430, 528 N.Y.S.2d 292 ; Johnson v. State of New York, 155 Misc.2d 537, 541, 588 N.Y.S.2d 722 [Ct Cl 1992] ).
DISCUSSION
The Court has considered all the evidence, including a review of the exhibits and listening to Claimant testify and observing his demeanor as he did so. Claimant seeks damages for the mental anguish and loss of liberty he endured as a result of his wrongful confinement. Mr. Torres testified about the mental anguish he suffered, describing the discomfort and lack of privacy he endured owing to the crowded conditions and the regimented structure of the prison day, his anxiety resulting from the dirty conditions in the bathrooms and poor hygiene of some of his fellow inmates, and his fear about inmates who grilled and bullied weaker inmates, and his restricted access to telephones.While Claimant appeared to be generally sincere and forthright in the testimony he offered, it was notable for its lack of specificity. There were exceptions, including his concerns about the bully who grilled him at Rikers, the violent sleepwalker at Rikers, and the occasion when inmates engaged in a sex act in the Rikers' bathroom. For the most part, however, Mr. Torres spoke in generalities, even when he was prompted by his counsel to provide more details. He witnessed fights, but could recall few particulars, saw weapons but offered no instances when or how they were employed. He was denied access to the phone, but did not relate a particular incident when that happened. Moreover, Claimant's demeanor, as observed by the Court, was quiet and reserved, at times a somewhat flat affect. The chief exception occurred when he was visibly moved while discussing the hardship imposed upon his mother by his incarceration. Fortunately, Mr. Torres was neither physically assaulted during the period of incarceration at issue in this Claim, nor did he require medical or psychological care. Finally, Claimant had been incarcerated on numerous occasions prior to October 8, 2009 and was familiar, if not comfortable, with how prisons operated. The Court concludes that, while Claimant established that he experienced sadness, anxiety, and fear about being held past his maximum expiration date, the degree of mental anguish Mr. Torres suffered during this period of wrongful confinement was vitiated somewhat by the factors enumerated above, all of which the Court properly considers.
Claimant does not appear to be seeking any economic damages arising from the wrongful confinement that is the subject of this Claim. In any event, Mr. Torres offered no proof of such damages, other than some vague and uncorroborated testimony about sometimes helping his father and a friend in their work. As it is Claimant's burden to establish any economic damages (see Poturniak v. Rupcic, 232 A.D.2d 541, 542, 648 N.Y.S.2d 668 [2d Dept 1996] ), the Court makes no award for economic damages.
At the same time, Claimant was more persuasive in relating the damages he sustained that are attributable to the loss of liberty imposed upon him. He knew that he was being held beyond his maximum expiration date, was tired of dealing with the other inmates, and dispirited to still be in prison. One day felt like a year to him. He said “there's nothing like home. You're free,” and recounted the myriad of ways in which life was better outside of prison. Mr. Torres' loss of freedom was palpable. He further described many everyday activities that he was unable to engage in because of his incarceration, including notably, his ability to enjoy being at home with his mother and family. Thus, the Court concludes that Claimant established that he was both conscious of, and distressed by, his loss of freedom and the pursuits he had to forego as a result. Likewise, he noted various limitations on his liberty that he chafed under while under parole supervision. While less severe than the conditions of his imprisonment, nevertheless he endured a number of restrictions on his freedom, as well as indignities like having to provide urine samples in the presence of his parole officer.
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed similar cases awarding damages for wrongful confinement (see e.g. Ifill v. State of New York, supra; Miller v. State of New York, supra; Sanabria v. State of New York, supra; Jackson v. State of New York, supra ). Upon consideration of the particular circumstances of this Claim, including the periods he served in prison, as well as restrictions he suffered while under parole supervision, the Court awards damages to Claimant in the amount of $90,000. Such amount represents compensation to Claimant for the noneconomic damages that he sustained during the period of his wrongful incarceration. The Court finds that sum constitutes fair and reasonable compensation for Mr. Torres' damages. The amount of such award shall bear interest from September 23, 2013, the date of the Decision and Order establishing liability (see Dingle v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 85 N.Y.2d 657 [1995] ; Love v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 540 [1991] ; CPLR § 5002 ).
In addition, the Court awards Claimant the actual amount of any fee paid to file the Claim, as a taxable disbursement pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11–a(2).
All motions upon which the Court reserved decision at trial are hereby denied.
All objections upon which the Court reserved determination at trial are now overruled.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.