Opinion
# 2018-032-013 Claim No. 123534
07-17-2018
MARCUS AYUSO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Marcus Ayuso, Pro Se Hon. Barbara D. Underwood, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Following a trial, claimant's wrongful confinement claim is dismissed. Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant acted in contravention of established rules and regulations in conducting the hearing.
Case information
| UID: | 2018-032-013 |
| Claimant(s): | MARCUS AYUSO |
| Claimant short name: | AYUSO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123534 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Marcus Ayuso, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Barbara D. Underwood, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 17, 2018 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
FACTS
Claimant was confined in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Five Points Correctional Facility from August 29, 2013 until September 16, 2013 pending a disciplinary hearing on two drug possession charges, an unauthorized medication charge and a smuggling charge (Claim ¶¶ 2, 4). A misbehavior report, written by Correction Officer Kelleher on August 29, 2013, indicated that Officer Kelleher observed suspicious behavior by claimant and proceeded to frisk him (Exhibit 1). A large white pill that was later identified as an amphetamine was found in claimant's pocket. A disciplinary hearing regarding the matter commenced on September 3, 2013 (Exhibit 2). On September 14, 2013, the Hearing Officer found claimant not guilty of the violations due to a procedural error and ordered claimant released from keeplock (see id.). Claimant initiated this action alleging wrongful confinement for the 16-day time period that he spent in the SHU. A trial regarding this matter was conducted on July 11, 2018.
Claimant alleges that he was confined to the SHU pending his disciplinary hearing (Claim ¶ 2). However, the hearing disposition sheet attached to the claim indicates that claimant was released from "keeplock" after he was found not guilty on all charges (Exhibit 2). The discrepancy does not change the Court's analysis. --------
LAW & DISCUSSION
"To establish a claim of false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant [is] required to show that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged" (Cass v State of New York, 134 AD3d 1207, 1208 [3d Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 27 NY3d 972 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Miller v State of New York, 124 AD3d 997, 998 [3d Dept. 2015]). Here, the Court finds that claimant established through his testimony at trial that he was intentionally confined, that he was conscious of said confinement, and that he did not consent to it. Thus, defendant's liability in this case turns upon whether or not its confinement of claimant in the SHU was privileged.
Formal inmate disciplinary proceedings conducted by prison officials "in full compliance with the governing statutes and regulations . . . constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State has absolute immunity" (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 [1988]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841 [3d Dept. 2001]). Thus, it is well-established that the State cannot be held liable where there is no allegation that the prison official acted in contravention of established rules and regulations while conducting disciplinary proceedings (Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 766 [3d Dept. 2001]). This is true even where the disposition of a disciplinary hearing is later reversed following an administrative appeal (Rivera v State of New York, UID No. 2006-028-008 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Feb. 8, 2006]). However, "not all disciplinary hearing procedural rules and regulations, if violated, form a basis to abrogate the immunity afforded to employees of the [DOCCS] in commencing and conducting formal inmate disciplinary proceedings. The rule or regulation must implicate minimal due process protections" (Amato v State of New York, UID No. 2014-041-038 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., June 26, 2014]). A claimant must also show that the prison official's rule violation "caused actual prejudice or injury to [the] claimant at the disciplinary hearing" (id.).
The initial seven days of an inmate's confinement to the SHU following the issuance of a misbehavior report are privileged pursuant to 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a). The inmate's superintendent's hearing must be commenced within seven days of the inmate's initial confinement (7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]). Here, claimant was confined to the SHU on August 29, 2013, and his superintendent's hearing commenced 5 days later on September 3, 2013 (Exhibit 2). The Court has reviewed Exhibit 3, Directive 4932, which outlines the procedures for implementing standards of inmate behavior pursuant to 22 NYCRR Parts 250 through 254, and finds that claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant violated these rules and regulations in its treatment of claimant at the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Kairis v State of New York, 113 AD3d 942 [3d Dept. 2014]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841 [3d Dept. 2001]). Moreover, although claimant asserts in this claim that his rights were violated during the disciplinary hearing (Claim ¶ 5), he failed to specifically identify the error committed, making it impossible for the Court to determine if the error implicated minimal due process protections (see Amato v State of New York, UID No. 2014-041-038 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., June 26, 2014]). It is claimant's burden to demonstrate that he was denied due process at the hearing (Hines v State of New York, UID No. 2017-018-856 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J., Dec. 15, 2017]). Accordingly, because there is no allegation that the hearing officer acted in contravention of established rules and regulations while conducting the hearing (Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 766 [3d Dept. 2001]), claimant's wrongful confinement claim must be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, claim number 123534 is dismissed. All motions or other applications not previously determined are hereby denied as moot.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
July 17, 2018
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims