Opinion
# 2021-015-039 Claim No. 131736 Motion No. M-96443
04-14-2021
JULIAN CAGGIANO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ric Cherwin, Esq. Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Christopher J. Kalil, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim alleging wrongful confinement was dismissed as untimely.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-015-039 |
| Claimant(s): | JULIAN CAGGIANO |
| Claimant short name: | CAGGIANO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 131736 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96443 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Ric Cherwin, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Christopher J. Kalil, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 14, 2021 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) on the grounds the claim fails to state a cause of action and was untimely served and filed.
According to the allegations in the claim, claimant, a former inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), was charged in a Misbehavior Report with possession of a weapon and an altered item after he attempted suicide with a state-issued razor. Following a hearing, claimant was found guilty of the charges and a 90-day penalty of confinement to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) was imposed. Claimant appealed the decision, which resulted in a 43-day reduction in the time he was to be confined to the SHU. However, claimant alleges that he nevertheless spent 55 days in punitive confinement rather than the 47-day penalty imposed following appeal. Claimant alleges that the correction officer issuing the Misbehavior Report, the officer reviewing the Report, and the Hearing Officer assigned to conduct the disciplinary hearing all violated applicable regulations when they prosecuted the charges against him without considering his mental status at the time. Claimant alleges that as a result of the charges he was wrongfully confined from October 19, 2017 through December 12, 2017. He further alleges that the charges were administratively reversed and directed to be expunged from his institutional record on December 26, 2017.
Defendant argues that neither a claim nor a notice of intention to file a claim were served within 90 days as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b). In support of its motion, defendant submits copies of both the notice of intention and the claim which were served by certified mail, return receipt requested, on March 30, 2018 and July 18, 2018, respectively. Defendant also contends that to the extent claimant seeks damages arising from his transfer to a maximum security prison in his fifth cause of action, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary administrative determinations and the claim therefore fails to state a cause of action in this regard.
Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b) requires that an intentional tort claim, such as one for wrongful confinement, be filed and served within 90 days after the accrual of the claim unless a notice of intention to file a claim is served within that same time period "in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within one year after the accrual of such claim." The State's waiver of immunity under Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act is conditioned upon claimant's compliance with the specific conditions to suit set forth in article II of the Court of Claims Act, including the time limitations set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (Lyles v State of New York, 3 NY3d 396, 400 [2004]; Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159 [2001]). As a result, "[a] failure to comply with the time provisions of Court of Claims Act § 10 divests the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction" (Steele v State of New York, 145 AD3d 1363, 1364 [3d Dept 2016]; see also Maude V. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 82 AD3d 1468, 1469 [3d Dept 2011]; Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2014]; Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003 [3d Dept 2013]).
A claim for wrongful confinement accrues upon a claimant's release from confinement because it is on that date that damages are reasonably ascertainable (Dawes v State of New York, 167 AD3d 1099 [3d Dept 2018]; Campos v State of New York, 139 AD3d 1276 [3d Dept 2016]; Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2011]; Burks v State of New York, 119 AD3d 1302 [3d Dept 2014]). Here, claimant alleges he was released from punitive confinement on December 12, 2017. Consequently, the notice of intention, which was not received in the Office of the Attorney General until March 30, 2018, was served beyond the 90-day limitations period set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b). To the extent claimant asserts otherwise, his contention is erroneously based on the date he requested DOCCS' staff to send the notice of intention. Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) makes clear, however, that service of either a claim or notice of intention is not complete until it is received in the Office of the Attorney General. This being the case, the notice of intention was untimely served and therefore did not extend claimant's time to serve and file a claim. The claim filed and served on July 18, 2018 was therefore untimely. Inasmuch as the defendant preserved this defense by raising it as its ninth affirmative defense in the answer (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [c]), the claim must be dismissed.
The Appellate Division, Third Department, has rejected the contention that a claim for wrongful confinement accrues upon exhaustion of administrative remedies (see Briggs v State of N.Y. Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 163 AD3d 1306 [3d Dept 2018], appeal dismissed 32 NY3d 1133 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 903 [2019]).
Finally, to the extent claimant alleges as the basis of his fourth cause of action an improper transfer to a maximum security prison, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary determinations (Polanco v State of New York, 130 AD3d 1494 [4th Dept 2015]; Feur v State of New York, 101 AD3d 1550 [3d Dept 2012]). Rather, review of such administrative determinations must be sought in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see e.g. Matter of Brooks v Annucci, 149 AD3d 1434 [3d Dept 2017]). Accordingly, claimant's fourth cause of action is independently subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion is granted, and the claim is dismissed.
April 14, 2021
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: Notice of Motion dated February 3, 2021; Affirmation in support dated February 3, 2021, with Exhibits A-C; Verified statement by counsel in opposition sworn to February 28, 2021, with Exhibit A.