Opinion
# 2021-032-034 Claim No. 135562 Motion No. M-96226
04-13-2021
JAMIR KING 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: | 2021-032-034 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMIR KING |
| Claimant short name: | KING |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135562 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96226 |
| 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 November 4, 2020 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]).
Claimant alleges that defendant's employee violated 7 NYCRR 251-2.2 ( c) which states that "[t]he review officer may dismiss any misbehavior report which fails to state a valid charge, or may return it to be rewritten." However, this allegation is belied by the exhibits attached to the claim. Exhibit A is a copy of claimant's misbehavior report, which lists rule violations of 106.10 (direct order); 104.11 (violent conduct); 100.13 (fighting); 107.10 (interference); and 104.13 (create disturbance), which are valid charges pursuant to Department of Corrections and Community Supervision regulations (see 7 NYCRR § 270.2 [Standards of Inmate Behavior]). Because claimant failed to allege any facts to establish that defendant's conduct in administering his disciplinary hearing was not privileged, he has failed to state a cause of action for wrongful confinement.
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion (M-96226) is GRANTED. Claim number 135562 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 25, 2020; and Affirmation in Support of Motion, affirmed by Ray A. Kyles, AAG on November 25, 2020, with Exhibit 1 annexed thereto.