Opinion
# 2015-010-016 Claim No. 125165 Motion No. M-86012
03-02-2015
TYRONE L. JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
TYRONE L. JACKSON Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Rebecca Kramer, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss granted, claimant's allegations are insufficient to abrogate defendant's absolute immunity and therefore do not state a claim for wrongful confinement.
Case information
UID: | 2015-010-016 |
Claimant(s): | TYRONE L. JACKSON |
Claimant short name: | JACKSON |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 125165 |
Motion number(s): | M-86012 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | Terry Jane Ruderman |
Claimant's attorney: | TYRONE L. JACKSON Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Rebecca Kramer, Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 2, 2015 |
City: | White Plains |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits.........................................1
Affidavit in Opposition.............................................................................................2
Claim No. 125165 alleges that, during claimant's incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, he was wrongfully confined in keeplock for 15 days based upon a "fabricated misbehavior report" dated September 9, 2014 which did not comply with the applicable regulations (Claim, ¶ 2, Defendant's Ex. A). Claimant also alleges that the disciplinary hearing was not completed within 14 days following the misbehavior report as required by 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1 (b) (id. at ¶ 17). This allegation, however, is belied by claimant's own alleged facts and exhibits to his claim. Specifically, paragraph nine of the claim states that on "September 16, 2014, the Hearing Officer was granted an extension of time to complete the hearing by September 26, 2014. (See attached Exhibit B)." Paragraph 10 of the claim states that the hearing was adjourned to September 24, 2014 and exhibit B to the claim indicates that the adjournment was due to "hearing officer and witness unavailability." Paragraph 10 of the claim also indicates that the hearing was completed on September 24, 2014. Exhibit C to the claim is dated September 24, 2014 and is the hearing officer's disposition, finding claimant not guilty of the charges.
It is well established that the State is afforded absolute immunity with regard to its quasi-judicial actions in disciplinary proceedings where discretion was exercised, even if erroneously exercised (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [3d Dept 2001] [the State was accorded full immunity in quasi-judicial actions in conducting disciplinary hearing]). Absolute immunity may be lost, however, if the hearing was conducted in contravention of a rule or regulation which caused the inmate to suffer actual prejudice or a deprivation of his due process rights (see Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [3d Dept 2009] [defendant's failure to comply with regulatory provisions in conducting disciplinary hearing did not eliminate defendant's cloak of immunity and cause of action for wrongful confinement was dismissed]; Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 825 [3d Dept 2004] [misdesignation of misbehavior report as a Tier III disciplinary hearing instead of a Tier II did not prejudice claimant; cause of action for wrongful confinement was dismissed]).
It has been held that a misbehavior report is sufficiently specific if it provides enough information to enable the inmate to prepare a defense against the charge (see Matter of Huston v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1259 [3d Dept 2010] [misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to give notice of the charges]; Matter of Page v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1067 [3d Dept 2009] [misbehavior report must specify the factual basis for the charge with enough particularity to enable the inmate to prepare a defense]; Matter of Huntley v Goord, 261 AD2d 401 [2d Dept 1999] [misbehavior report was detailed enough to enable claimant to prepare a defense]). Given the favorable outcome to claimant regarding the hearing, claimant cannot be said to have been prejudiced in preparing a defense to the charges set forth in the misbehavior report.
In sum, claimant's allegations are insufficient to abrogate defendant's absolute immunity and therefore do not state a claim for wrongful confinement (see Shannon v State of New York, 111 AD3d 1077 [3d Dept 2013] [the claim fails to set forth sufficient facts to overcome defendant's immunity defense]).
Defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 125165 is hereby GRANTED.
March 2, 2015
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims