Opinion
# 2014-010-078 Claim No. 124518 Motion No. M-85595
12-03-2014
JOHN LANORITH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JOHN LANORITH 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 denied, summary judgment granted for wrongful confinement
Case information
| UID: | 2014-010-078 |
| Claimant(s): | JOHN LANORITH |
| Claimant short name: | LANORITH |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124518 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85595 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Terry Jane Ruderman |
| Claimant's attorney: | JOHN LANORITH 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: | December 3, 2014 |
| 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:
Defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7); however a review of the papers before this Court makes clear that both parties are treating the motion as one for summary judgment under CPLR 3212; therefore the Court will address the motion accordingly (CPLR 3211 [c]).
Notice of Motion, Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits..........................................1
Opposition................................................................................................................2
Filed Papers: Claim with Attachments
Claim No. 124518 alleges that during claimant's incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, he was wrongfully confined from January 16, 2014 through May 2, 2014.
The undisputed facts establish that, after a disciplinary hearing, claimant was found guilty of the charges set forth in the misbehavior report. On April 17, 2014, the hearing officer's determination was reversed and claimant was not released from keeplock until May 2, 2014 (Defendant's Ex. B).
Claimant asserts that his confinement was wrongful as evidenced by its reversal. However, the mere fact that the disciplinary charges were ultimately dismissed does not give rise to a cognizable cause of action absent proof that defendant acted inconsistently with its own rules and regulations (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 406 [Ct Cl 1986]). Further, while defendant's failure to follow its own rules and regulations removes the cloak of absolute immunity, it does not establish claimant's entitlement to absolute liability (see Arteaga, 72 NY2d 212; Kilpatrick v State of New York, UID No. 2001-013-031 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 2001]; Moreno v State of New York, UID 2001-007-551 [Ct Cl, Bell, J., April 5, 2001]). Claimant must establish the merits of his claim.
Claimant's contention that defendant violated 7 NYCRR § 254.5(a) is belied by the record. 7 NYCRR § 254.5(a) provides in pertinent part:
"[i]f permission to call a witness is denied, the hearing officer shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented [emphasis added]."
The written Witness Interview Notice attached to the claim and submitted by defendant as exhibit D clearly states that claimant's requested witness was denied on January 21, 2014 because the witness "has had his employment with New York State terminated. He is not reachable, and he cannot be compelled to testify at this hearing." (see Matter of Griffin v Prack, 110 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2013]; Matter of Tafari v Fischer, 93 AD3d 1054 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Allah v Goord, 4 AD3d 804 [4th Dept 2004]). Thus, claimant cannot prevail on this allegation.
However, upon review of the papers before the Court, the Court finds that defendant fails to refute claimant's allegations that he was denied his due process rights when the investigating officer, Lieutenant Thayer, conducted claimant's disciplinary hearing in violation of 7 NYCRR § 254.1. It is specifically provided in 7 NYCRR § 254.1 that:
"[t]he following persons shall not be appointed to conduct the [disciplinary] proceeding: a person who actually witnessed the incident; a person who was directly involved in the incident; the review officer who reviewed the misbehavior report, or a person who has investigated the incident."
Defendant also fails to offer any explanation as to why, upon the April 17, 2014 reversal of the hearing officer's findings, claimant was not released until May 2, 2014.
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 124518 is DENIED and summary judgment on the issue of liability is GRANTED in favor of claimant for wrongful confinement for 106 days and a trial on the issue of damages shall be scheduled as soon as practicable.
December 3, 2014
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims