Opinion
# 2017-018-850 Claim No. 126077 Motion No. M-90915 Cross-Motion No. CM-90962
11-30-2017
RAMON AVILES v. STATE OF NEW YORK
RAMON AVILES Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the State is liable for Claimant's excessive wrongful confinement after April 9, 2015 through April 14, 2015. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is also granted to the extent that Claimant's claim for wrongful confinement from February 4, 2015 until April 9, 2015 is dismissed.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-018-850 |
| Claimant(s): | RAMON AVILES |
| Claimant short name: | AVILES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126077 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90915 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-90962 |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | RAMON AVILES Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Ray A. Kyles, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | November 30, 2017 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant brings a motion for summary judgment. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action.
Claimant served and filed a verified claim on May 1, 2015. The claim seeks damages for wrongful confinement and excessive wrongful confinement. The claim asserts that on February 3, 2015, while Claimant was an inmate at Cape Vincent Correctional Facility, a cube search was performed and a bag with a white powdery substance was found inside the sole of a State-issued boot found in Claimant's locker. Claimant was issued a misbehavior report. On that same date, "NIK" testing was performed and the substance tested positive for heroin. On February 6, 2015, Claimant was issued another misbehavior report, which he was told was in place of the first, indicating that the substance found was again "NIK" tested and it tested positive for Dimethyl Trytamine/Diethyl Trytamine. At the Superintendent's Hearing, Claimant was found guilty of violating the Standards of Inmate Behavior [7 NYCRR § 270.2] Rule 113.23, Possession of Contraband; Rule 113.25, Possession of Narcotic; and Rule 114.10, Smuggling. He was penalized with 90 days in the Special Housing Unit (SHU), with 30 days suspended, and loss of privileges. Claimant appealed the findings from the Superintendent's Hearing and the findings were reversed on April 9, 2015. Claimant was not released from the SHU until April 14, 2015. Defendant interposed an answer to the claim and raised 11 affirmative defenses.
Claimant now seeks summary judgment on the basis that there is no defense to his claim. Claimant alleges that at his Superintendent's Hearing on the misbehavior charges he told the Hearing Officer that the tests results on the substance found in Claimant's shoe and the additional substance which Claimant turned over were incorrect, because it was not heroin but bleach used for laundry. Claimant alleges that despite this he was found guilty of all charges. Claimant alleges that the State also pursued a malicious criminal prosecution in Jefferson County Court for the same charges. The Jefferson County District Attorney offered Claimant a plea deal but, ultimately, the charges were dismissed. Claimant alleges that based upon the documentation attached to his motion, he is entitled to an Order striking Defendant's answer and granting him summary judgment finding that he was wrongfully confined as a matter of law.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should only be granted where there are no issues of fact and the claim can be decided as a matter of law (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film, Corp., 3 NY2d 395 [1957]). On a motion for summary judgment the movant has the burden to establish his right to judgment as a matter of law by proof in admissible form (Friends of Animals v Assoc. Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068 [1979]). "Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). In considering the evidence submitted on the motion, the Court must view it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of any favorable inference (Ruzycki v Baker, 301 AD2d 48, 50 [4th Dept 2002]; Boston v Dunham, 274 AD2d 708, 709 [3d Dept 2000]).
Here, Claimant asserts a cause of action for wrongful confinement, which is a "species" of the tort of false imprisonment (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 407 [Ct Cl 1986]). To establish this cause of action as a matter of law, Claimant bears the burden to show 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 cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929). Typically, the primary issue in contention is privilege. The State's restrictive confinement of an inmate is privileged if it was done in accordance with Department of Corrections and Community Service (DOCCS) regulations (Lee v State of New York, 124 AD2d 305, 307 [3d Dept 1986]; Gittens,132 Misc 2d at 402). Where DOCCS employees have conducted the disciplinary process in accordance with the governing statutes and regulations, their actions are discretionary conduct that is quasi-judicial in nature and absolutely immune from liability (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 [1985]). This immunity attaches even if it is later determined that the Hearing Examiner's findings are reversed by administrative appeal or after an Article 78 proceeding (Id. at 215). There is no immunity, however, where there is a violation of an inmate's due process rights that affects the outcome of the hearing causing actual prejudice or injury (Id. at 221; Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089, 1089 [3d Dept 2009]; Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 85 [3d Dept 2004]).
Here, Claimant contends that he was improperly charged with contraband, because the white powdery substance that was found in his shoe was not heroin but bleach for use in the laundry. Although Claimant questions the "NIK" testing procedures, Claimant does not allege any violation of any due process regulations in the search, or the disciplinary process from the misbehavior report to the procedural conduct at the hearing. Although the reasons for the administrative reversal of the disciplinary findings on appeal were not set forth, none of Claimant's submissions allege a prejudicial due process violation. Mistakes or improper motives in charging Claimant with misbehavior, faulty testing of confiscated substances, the process of weighing of the evidence introduced at the Superintendent's Hearing, or arriving at an incorrect conclusion of guilt, are not matters this Court can or should review (see Arteaga, 72 NY2d at 219-220). As long as the officers and employees of the State acted within their authority in compliance with the DOCCS rules and regulations their actions are discretionary and subject to absolute immunity rendering Claimant's confinement in the SHU from February 4, 2015 through April 9, 2015 privileged. As a matter of law, Claimant's wrongful confinement claim for that period of time is not actionable.
The same cannot be said, however, of Claimant's continued confinement in the SHU after the administrative appeal and reversal of the disciplinary findings. Where a finding of misbehavior is reversed, after an administrative appeal or Article 78 proceeding and there is no longer regulatory authority to hold an inmate in restrictive confinement, discretionary conduct is not involved, and continued confinement is not privileged. In this circumstance, "an inmate's release from an imposed disciplinary confinement in keeplock, or otherwise upon the expiration of an ordered penalty, is . . . a purely ministerial act invoking no discretionary authority. . . The purported failure to have timely released Claimant from keeplock, which might be termed ministerial neglect, vitiates the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Correctional Services [now DOCCS] and liability may ensue." (Gittens, 132 Misc 2d at 406 ). Claimant has established through his affidavit that he was kept in the SHU after the reversal of his disciplinary findings on April 9, 2015 until April 14, 2015. He has established a prima facie case of excessive wrongful confinement. Defendant has not presented any evidence or raised any explanation or justification for Claimant's continued confinement in the SHU after April 9, 2015. As a result, Claimant is granted summary judgment for his excessive confinement in the SHU after April 9, 2015 though April 14, 2015.
Accordingly, Claimant's motion for summary judgment is granted in part, to the extent that the State is liable for Claimant's excessive wrongful confinement after April 9, 2015 through April 14, 2015. The balance of Claimant's motion is DENIED. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is also GRANTED, in part, to the extent that Claimant's claim for wrongful confinement from February 4, 2015 until April 9, 2015 is DISMISSED. The balance of Defendant's motion is DENIED.
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT should be entered as set forth herein.
November 30, 2017
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following in deciding these motions:
M-90915
1) Notice of Motion. 2) Affidavit of Ramon Aviles, Pro Se, sworn to July 21, 2017, in support, with exhibits attached thereto. 3) Claimant's Memorandum of Law in support.
CM-90962
4) Notice of Motion. 5) Affirmation of Ray A. Kyles, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in support, with exhibits attached thereto.