Opinion
2014-01-16
In the Matter of Paul KAIRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
Paul Kairis, Alden, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Kairis, Alden, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.
ROSE, J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (DeBow, J.), entered May 16, 2012, which denied claimant's application pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) for permission to file a late claim.
Claimant, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating various prison disciplinary rules in April 2007, and he served 90 days in the special housing unit. In August 2010, he served an additional 30 days of keeplock after being found guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules in another determination. Both determinations were administratively reversed and, in February 2012, claimant moved for leave to serve a late claim, asserting that he had been wrongfully confined on both occasions. The Court of Claims denied the motion, finding both claims to be barred by the applicable statute of limitations and meritless. Claimant now appeals.
The applicable statute of limitations for a claim of excessive confinement in the prison disciplinary context depends on whether the claim is predicated on intentional or negligent conduct ( seeCourt of Claims Act § 10 [3], [3–b]; Ramirez v. State of New York, 171 Misc.2d 677, 680–682, 655 N.Y.S.2d 791 [1997]; cf. Vazquez v. State of New York, 23 Misc.3d 1101[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50527[U], *2 n. 2, 2009 WL 818704 [2009], affd. 77 A.D.3d 1229, 909 N.Y.S.2d 581 [2010] ). Such a claim accrues “upon a claimant's release from confinement” (Davis v. State of New York, 89 A.D.3d 1287, 1287, 933 N.Y.S.2d 431 [2011] ).
Here, claimant's contentions regarding his 2007 confinement are untimely under either theory and, even assuming that the cause of action relating to the 2010 confinement is subject to the two-year statute of limitations, the Court of Claims appropriately found that the claim lacks merit due to claimant's failure to allege “that the correctional facility employees responsible for his discipline acted in excess of their authority or in violation of any relevant rules or regulations” (Loret v. State of New York, 106 A.D.3d 1159, 1159, 964 N.Y.S.2d 430 [2013], lv. denied22 N.Y.3d 852, 2013 WL 5614435 [2013]; see Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 212, 219, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57, 527 N.E.2d 1194 [1988]; Varela v. State of New York, 283 A.D.2d 841, 841, 724 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2001] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs. PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ., concur.