Opinion
# 2015-041-007 Claim No. 124185 Motion No. M-85909
01-23-2015
WILLIAM PRAILEAU v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NONE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Jessica Hall, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss false imprisonment claim is granted where claim fails to state a cause of action as claimant's imprisonment was privileged.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-041-007 |
| Claimant(s): | WILLIAM PRAILEAU |
| Claimant short name: | PRAILEAU |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124185 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85909 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | NONE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Jessica Hall, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 23, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss this false imprisonment claim for failure to state a cause of action. In particular, defendant asserts, among other things, that claimant's imprisonment was privileged pursuant to a facially valid warrant.
Claimant has not opposed the motion.
The amended claim consists of approximately 26 pages of mostly incomprehensible gibberish which, reduced to its essence, alleges that claimant was falsely imprisoned because the subject post-release supervision (PRS) violation warrant pursuant to which claimant was arrested and imprisoned is invalid. Claimant asserts that the PRS violation warrant is a "pretend warrant" because it states his name as "Praileau, William" rather than "William Praileau™" or "William-Robert [:of the family Praileau] Sui Juris/Secured Party/Natural Man."
To establish that he was falsely imprisoned, claimant must prove that "(1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the [claimant] was conscious of the confinement, (3) the [claimant] did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged" (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929; Krzyzak v Schaefer, 52 AD3d 979 [3d Dept 2008]).
An imprisonment is privileged where "claimant's confinement was pursuant to parole [or PRS] violation warrants that were valid on their face" (Marsh v State of New York, 119 AD3d 11, 13 [3d Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 903 [2014], see Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389 [2011]).
Defendant has shown, without opposition from claimant, that the claimant was arrested and imprisoned pursuant to a facially valid PRS violation warrant.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the amended claim for failure to state a cause of action is granted.
The claim is dismissed.
January 23, 2015
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion, filed July 18, 2014;
2. Affirmation of Jessica Hall, dated July 18, 2014, and annexed exhibits (including affirmation of Richard de Simone, dated July 15, 2014).