From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jenkins-Gonzalez v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Oct 26, 2018
# 2018-015-175 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Oct. 26, 2018)

Opinion

# 2018-015-175 Claim No. 131403 Motion No. M-92670

10-26-2018

AMARI JENKINS-GONZALEZ, 14 R 0665 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

No Appearance Honorable Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq., Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Claim alleging only that an inmate was assaulted by another inmate sometime after his cell door was opened failed to sufficiently allege how the State was negligent and was therefore dismissed for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). To the extent the claim alleged medical malpractice for treatment rendered by an independent medical facility not owned or operated by DOCCS, the claim failed to state a case of action.

Case information

UID:

2018-015-175

Claimant(s):

AMARI JENKINS-GONZALEZ, 14 R 0665

Claimant short name:

GONZALEZ

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

131403

Motion number(s):

M-92670

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Claimant's attorney:

No Appearance

Defendant's attorney:

Honorable Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General By: Paul F. Cagino, Esq., Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

October 26, 2018

City:

Saratoga Springs

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the instant claim, which alleges both negligent supervision of inmates by prison officials and medical malpractice, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (7) on the grounds it fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and no facts are alleged from which the acts of an independent medical facility may be imputed to the State.

Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks damages for personal injuries sustained when he was assaulted by another inmate, and for medical malpractice arising from medical treatment rendered at Albany Medical Center. With respect to the manner in which the assault occurred, claimant alleges the following:

"2. That the negligent actions of the defendant took place on March 17, 2018 at approximately 1:55 pm at Great Meadow Corr. Facility . . . when a prison official working the console on A-6 gallery opened claimant's cell while knowing that the claimant was confined pending a hearing for a previous incident (fight) that occurred on March 16, 2018 at approximately 9:55 pm in the small yard, in which the claimant was assaulted and cut in the face receiving a 3 inch laceration. (see Exhibit A) . . .

4. That on March 17, 2018 at approximately 1:55 pm at Great Meadow Corr. Facility, a prison official working the console on A-6 gallery opened claimant's cell while knowing he was confined pending a hearing for a previous incident (fight), in which the claimant was assaulted and cut in the face by an unknown prisoner." (defendant's Exhibit A)

Section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act requires that a claim state "the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed." Inasmuch as "all of the requirements in section 11 (b) are 'substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereign immunity' ", the failure to satisfy any one of the conditions is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the claim (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007] [citation omitted], rearg denied 8 NY3d 994 [2007]; see also Kobrin v State of New York, 144 AD3d 1542 [4th Dept 2016]; Sommer v State of New York, 131 AD3d 757, 758 [3d Dept 2015]; Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1116 [3d Dept 2013]; Dinerman v NYS Lottery, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911 [2010]; Nasir v State of New York, 41 AD3d 677 [2d Dept 2007]; Mujica v State of New York, 24 AD3d 898 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 701 [2006]). The guiding principle in determining the sufficiency of a claim is whether it is sufficiently definite " 'to enable the State . . . to investigate the claim[s] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances' . . ." (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 207, 207 [2003], quoting Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767 [4th Dept 1980]). "The statement must be specific enough so as not to mislead, deceive or prejudice the rights of [defendant]" (Demonstoy v State of New York, 130 AD3d 1337, 1337 [3d Dept 2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

To adequately plead the "nature" of the claim, sufficient facts must be alleged to at least permit an inference as to "the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the [defendant] was negligent" (Heisler, 78 AD2d at 767-768 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Deep v State of New York, 56 AD3d 1260 [4th Dept 2008]; Czynski v State of New York, 53 AD3d 881 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 715 [2009]; Klos v State of New York, 19 AD3d 1173 [4th Dept 2005]; Rodriguez v State of New York, 8 AD3d 647 [2d Dept 2004]; Cendales v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1165 [3d Dept 2003]; Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858 [3d Dept 1997]). Defendant contends that neither the way in which the claimant was injured nor the manner in which the State was negligent were sufficiently alleged in the claim.

While the State must safeguard inmates in its custody from foreseeable attacks by other inmates, it is not an insurer of inmate safety and the mere happening of an assault and battery, without more, is insufficient to cast the State in liability (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 252 [2002]; Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342 [1947]; Di Donato v State of New York, 25 AD3d 944 [3d Dept 2006]). Rather, liability may arise from what the State knew or should have known regarding: (1) the risk of harm to a class of inmates which included the victim (Sanchez, supra), (2) the dangerous propensities of the assailant (Blake v State of New York, 259 AD2d 878 [3d Dept 1999]; Littlejohn v State of New York, 218 AD2d 833 [3d Dept 1995]), or (3) the risk of an assault upon the claimant and the failure to prevent it despite an opportunity to do so (Huertas v State of New York, 84 AD2d 650 [3d Dept 1981]; see also see Matter of Sandlin v State of New York, 294 AD2d 723, 725 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 589 [2003]; Auger v State of New York, 263 AD2d 929 [3d Dept 1999]; Evans v State of New York, 11 Misc 3d 1065 [A] [Ct Cl 2006]). Here, no facts are alleged which would permit the State to infer how it was negligent for the alleged inmate-on-inmate attack. While the claimant alleges he was confined to his cell pending a disciplinary hearing for a fight in the Small Yard on March 16, 2018, he fails to allege facts establishing that the State was in any way negligent and, therefore, potentially liable for the subject assault, or the basis for the allegation that his cell door should not have been opened. The allegation in the claim itself that prison officials opened his cell door, despite their knowledge that he was confined pending a hearing following a fight the day before, is insufficient to permit an inference of negligence. Absent some factual predicate for the assertion of liability against the State, the claim fails to adequately state the nature of the claim and must be dismissed.

The papers attached to the filed claim indicate that claimant was assaulted by an inmate in the Big Yard of Great Meadow Correctional Facility on March 17, 2018. Defense counsel states that "the claim that was served upon the [Office of the Attorney General] did not include any exhibits" (Cagino affirmation, ¶ 10).

To the extent the claim seeks to hold the defendant vicariously liable for medical treatment rendered at Albany Medical Center, this is not a State owned or operated facility and no facts have been alleged from which an ostensible agency could be inferred (Garofolo v State of New York, 135 AD3d 1108 [3d Dept 2016]; Rivers v State of New York, 159 AD2d 788 [3d Dept 1990], appeal denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]; Cora v The State of New York, UID No. 2011-015-267 [Ct Cl, Collins J. Oct. 31, 2011]). Consequently, the medical malpractice claim fails to state a cause of action against the defendant.

Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the internet at www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.

Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted, and the claim is dismissed, without opposition.

October 26, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:

1. Notice of motion dated July 27, 2018; 2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, Esq., dated July 27, 2018, with Exhibits A and B.


Summaries of

Jenkins-Gonzalez v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Oct 26, 2018
# 2018-015-175 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Oct. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Jenkins-Gonzalez v. State

Case Details

Full title:AMARI JENKINS-GONZALEZ, 14 R 0665 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Oct 26, 2018

Citations

# 2018-015-175 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Oct. 26, 2018)