Opinion
# 2013-010-075 Claim No. 122313 Motion # 2013-010-075 Claim No. M-84067 CM-84284 # 2013-010-075 Claim No. M-84396
02-07-2014
NIKO WILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Claimant's attorney: NIKO WILLER Pro Se Defendant's attorney: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment on wrongful excessive confinement granted.
Case information
UID: 2013-010-075 Claimant(s): NIKO WILLER Claimant short name: WILLER Footnote (claimant The caption has been amended to reflect claimant's name) : proper name, a/k/a Niko Willis. Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant (s): Third-party defendant (s): Claim number(s): 122313 Motion number(s): M-84067, CM-84284, M-84396 Cross-motion number (s): Judge: Terry Jane Ruderman NIKO WILLER Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: February 7, 2014 City: White Plains Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-84067), defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (CM-84284) and claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's cross-motion (M-84396):
Claimant's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits (M-84067)............................................................................1
Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses and Exhibit............................................................................2
Defendant's Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Affirmation and Exhibits, Memorandum of Law................................................................................................3
Claimant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Cross-Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits (M-84284).........................................................4
Claimant seeks summary judgment on his claim of wrongful excessive confinement in keeplock from November 8, 2011 until February 2, 2012. On January 31, 2012, the hearing officer's determination was administratively reversed and claimant's records were expunged (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Ex. D).
The hearing record failed to indicate how claimant's mental health status was considered. Defendant notes, however, that the hearing officer took confidential testimony from claimant's Office of Mental Health clinician (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Ex. I) and claimant did not make any argument regarding his mental health.
Claimant argues that "the hearing officer just outright denied claimant's witnesses" in violation of 7 NYCRR 254.5 (a) which permits an inmate to call witnesses on his behalf (Claimant's Affidavit Supporting his Summary Judgment Motion, ¶ 6). Claimant also argues that defendant violated 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c) (3) because the misbehavior report failed to provide the date, time and place of the incident (id.). Defendant opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Claimant then moved to dismiss defendant's cross-motion.
The quasi-judicial acts of correction employees made in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures are entitled to absolute immunity (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]). The mere fact that the disciplinary charges were ultimately dismissed does not give rise to a cognizable cause of action absent proof that defendant acted inconsistently with its own rules and regulations (see Arteaga, 72 NY2d 212; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 406 [Ct Cl 1986]). While defendant's failure to follow its own rules and regulations removes the cloak of absolute immunity, it does not establish claimant's entitlement to absolute liability (see Kilpatrick v State of New York, UID No. 2001-013-031 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 2001]; Moreno v State of New York, UID 2001-007-551 [Ct Cl, Bell, J., April 5, 2001]). Rather, claimant must further establish the merits of his claim.
Contrary to claimant's arguments, the misbehavior report did provide the date, time and place along with the rule violated and a brief description (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Ex. G). Also, the hearing record sheet indicates that the two witnesses requested by claimant: (1) Correction Officer Ortiz, who reported the incident and signed the misbehavior report, and (2) a technician from the manufacturer of the urinalysis machine, were called and testified at the hearing (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Exs. H, I). Thus, claimant cannot prevail on the arguments he has advanced and his motion for summary judgment is DENIED in that regard. However, the record indicates that while the hearing officer's determination was reversed on January 31, 2012, claimant was not released from keeplock until February 2, 2012. Defendant offers no opposition to this branch of claimant's summary judgment motion nor does defendant offer any explanation as to why claimant was not released on January 31, 2012. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS claimant's motion for summary judgment on his claim of wrongful excessive confinement from January 31, 2012 to February 2, 2012, and the issue of claimant's damages for this wrongful confinement must await a trial.
Claimant's remaining causes of action asserted in the claim are addressed by the Court in resolving defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the entire claim. Defendant correctly argues that the notice of intention does not extend the time to serve and file a claim for any causes of action which were not set forth in the notice of intention (Keskin v State of New York, 14 Misc 3d 537, 541-542 [Ct Cl 2006]) and that there is no basis to impose a constitutional tort remedy where claimant has an adequate remedy at law (Lyles v State of New York, 3 NY3d 396 [2004]).
Accordingly, defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the claim is DENIED to the cause of action based upon wrongful excessive confinement from January 31, 2012 to February 2, 2012 and is GRANTED as to all other causes of action asserted in the claim.
Claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's cross-motion is resolved as set forth in this Decision and Order.
February 7, 2014
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims