Opinion
# 2021-032-035 Claim No. 133240 Motion No. M-96225
04-13-2021
NICHOLAS KHAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
No Appearance Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, AAG
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Claim fails to allege that claimant's confinement was not otherwise privileged.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-032-035 |
| Claimant(s): | NICHOLAS KHAN |
| Claimant short name: | KAHN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 133240 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96225 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 13, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant claim with the Clerk of the Court on June 19, 2019, seeking damages for an alleged wrongful confinement. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that the claim fails to state cause of action. Claimant has not responded to the motion.
To establish a claim of wrongful 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, defendant argues that the claim does not contain facts sufficient to allege that claimant's confinement was not otherwise privileged.
It is well established that the State is accorded absolute immunity for the actions of its hearing officers charged with presiding over disciplinary hearings. This immunity covers the discretionary conduct of hearing officers due to the quasi-judicial nature of such conduct, even if that discretion was erroneously exercised or the resultant findings were subsequently overturned (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [3d Dept. 2001]). Absolute immunity may be lost, however, if the State acted in contravention of a governing rule or regulation which caused claimant to suffer actual prejudice or a deprivation of his due process rights (see Watson v State of New York, 125 AD3d 1064 [3d Dept. 2015]; Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [3d Dept. 2009]).
Here, claimant alleges that he was wrongfully confined following a disciplinary hearing following a false positive test result after a urinalysis test. "To the extent that [a] claimant asserts that drug testing directives were violated, they do not relate to the due process concerns of the hearing and do not serve as a basis for the wrongful confinement cause of action" (Miller v State of New York, 156 AD3d 1067, 1068 [3d Dept. 2017]). Accordingly, the State retains absolute immunity for its failure to adhere to drug testing directives found in its regulations regarding inmate disciplinary proceedings and for the alleged mishandling of a urine sample (Ramirez v State of New York, 175 AD3d 1635, 1637-1638 [3d Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 NY3d 902 [2020]; see also Haddock v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-015 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., Mar. 27, 2018]). The claim does not identify any other specific Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) directive that was allegedly violated by DOCCS officials. Therefore, the Court finds that the claim fails to state a cause of action for wrongful confinement.
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim (M-96225) is GRANTED. Claim number 133240 is DISMISSED.
April 13, 2021
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Notice of Motion, dated November 23, 2020; and Affirmation in Support of Motion, affirmed by Ray A. Kyles, AAG on November 23, 2020, with Exhibits A through B annexed thereto.