From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crenshaw v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 12, 2015
# 2014-041-004 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 12, 2015)

Opinion

# 2014-041-004 Claim No. 123194 Motion No. M-85795

01-12-2015

WILLIAM CRENSHAW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM CRENSHAW Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Claimant's second motion for summary judgment is denied in wrongful confinement action where claimant fails to base successive summary judgment motion on newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause and again fails to show, as a matter of law, that defendant's quasi-judicial hearing immunity is abrogated by defendant's alleged violation of disciplinary hearing regulation.

Case information

UID:

2014-041-004

Claimant(s):

WILLIAM CRENSHAW

Claimant short name:

CRENSHAW

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

123194

Motion number(s):

M-85795

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

FRANK P. MILANO

Claimant's attorney:

WILLIAM CRENSHAW Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Belinda A. Wagner Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

January 12, 2015

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant again moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for "Summary Judgment as to the cause of action in the Complaint." Defendant opposes the motion.

Claimant again alleges that he was wrongfully confined to keeplock as a consequence of a guilty determination in a prison disciplinary proceeding held on August 22, 2013.

The disciplinary determination was later vacated and expunged by a Clinton County Supreme Court Decision and Order issued in an CPLR Article 78 proceeding brought by claimant against defendant.

Claimant's prior motion for summary judgment on the claim was denied in the Court's Decision and Order, filed June 18, 2014, which found that:

"[C]laimant has failed to prove, as a matter of law, that defendant violated the minimal due process requirement to provide a fair disciplinary hearing, and that any such violation caused actual prejudice or injury to claimant. Claimant has therefore failed to prove, as a matter of law, that the absolute immunity provided by [Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 (1988)] to defendant in conducting the quasi-judicial disciplinary hearing was abrogated."

"Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause" (Tingling v C.I.N.H.R., Inc., 120 AD3d 570, 570 [2d Dept 2014]).

The only arguably new evidence submitted with claimant's second summary judgment motion is the "Memorandum" of Clinton Correctional Facility (Clinton) Superintendent LaValley, dated February 13, 2014, which advised the Clinton Inmate Record Coordinator to dismiss the charges which were the subject of the claimant's disciplinary hearing of August 22, 2013:

"THESE CHARGES ARE TO BE DISMISSED. REVERSE HEARING."

The LaValley Memorandum simply signifies the administrative confirmation of the above-referenced Article 78 Supreme Court Order which had directed that the "hearing determination should be vacated and expunged."

The LaValley Memorandum does not constitute newly discovered evidence and does not provide sufficient cause to entertain a second, essentially duplicative, summary judgment motion.

Additionally, for all of the reasons set forth in this Court's Decision and Order resolving claimant's first summary judgment motion, filed June 18, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, claimant's second summary judgment fails to prove, as a matter of law, that the absolute immunity afforded defendant by Arteaga v State of New York (72 NY2d 212, 214 [1988]), in conducting claimant's quasi-judicial disciplinary hearing, was abrogated.

Claimant's second motion for summary judgment is denied.

January 12, 2015

Albany, New York

FRANK P. MILANO

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed October 20, 2014;

2. Affidavit of William Crenshaw, sworn to October 3, 2014, and annexed exhibits;

3. Affirmation in Opposition of Belinda A. Wagner, dated November 3, 2014, and annexed exhibits;

4. Reply Affidavit of William Crenshaw, sworn to November 13, 2014;

5. Decision and Order, Motion No. M-84562, filed June 18, 2014.


Summaries of

Crenshaw v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 12, 2015
# 2014-041-004 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Crenshaw v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CRENSHAW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 12, 2015

Citations

# 2014-041-004 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 12, 2015)