From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 9, 2015
# 2015-040-013 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 9, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-040-013 Claim No. 119053

03-09-2015

EDDIE JAMES LEE, SR., 94-B-0823 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Eddie James Lee, Sr., Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Senior Attorney


Synopsis

Court finds State not liable for inmate-on-inmate assault.

Case information

UID:

2015-040-013

Claimant(s):

EDDIE JAMES LEE, SR., 94-B-0823

Claimant short name:

LEE

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

119053

Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY

Claimant's attorney:

Eddie James Lee, Sr., Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Thomas Trace, Senior Attorney

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

March 9, 2015

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant pro se, Eddie James Lee, Sr., failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the State of New York was negligent in connection with injuries he sustained in an inmate-on-inmate assault while he was incarcerated in the Walsh Regional Medical Unit ("Walsh RMU") at Mohawk Correctional Facility in Rome, New York ("Mohawk"). The trial of the Claim was held by video conference on December 19, 2014, with the parties at Marcy Correctional Facility in Marcy, New York, and the judge at the Court of Claims in Saratoga Springs, New York. There were two witnesses, the Claimant and Correction Officer ("CO") Jeffrey M. Jones. Claimant submitted a copy of his Claim into evidence (Ex. 1) and the State submitted into evidence a copy of Claimant's misbehavior packet that was generated as a result of the subject incident (Ex. A).

Claimant testified that, on October 11, 2009 at approximately 12:00 p.m., he was in the inmate mess hall at Walsh RMU. He was sitting at his usual table that is reserved for inmates confined to wheelchairs, however, he was there at a different time than he usually was. Another inmate, Mr. Emerson, who is also confined to a wheelchair came by his table and touched Claimant's tray with his hand that was holding his colostomy bag. Claimant said he asked Mr. Emerson not to touch his tray again. Claimant stated that Inmate Emerson came back to his table and this time had a fork in his "balled up hand." Claimant testified that, in an act of self-defense, he threw his drink of Kool-Aid on Mr. Emerson. Both inmates then started throwing punches at each other. Claimant stated that he was stabbed above his left eye by Inmate Emerson with the fork.

Upon cross-examination, Claimant stated that he later learned that Mr. Emerson was upset because Claimant was sitting in Emerson's "usual seat." Claimant stated that, if Inmate Emerson had told him, he would have moved. He also stated that he was not on Mr. Emerson's enemies list and Mr. Emerson was not on his enemies list, adding that "I had no quarrel with him." He stated that he feared Mr. Emerson was about to attack him with the fork, so he threw his drink at Inmate Emerson, and then they both started throwing punches at each other. He further testified that a correction officer was stationed approximately 15 feet from his lunch table, but he did not call to the officer for help prior to throwing his drink at Mr. Emerson. Claimant stated that, following the incident, he refused placement into protective custody (see Ex. A, p. 7).

All quotations not otherwise attributed are taken from the electronic recording of the trial and/or the Court's notes.

The State called CO Jones as a witness. He testified that he has been employed by Defendant as a correction officer since January 1987 and started working at Mohawk in November 1989. He stated that he was on duty at the mess hall at Walsh RMU on October 11, 2009 at approximately 12:00 p.m. He stated that he witnessed words being exchanged between Claimant and Inmate Emerson, that Claimant threw his drink at Mr. Emerson, and that both inmates started throwing punches. He said he went over to them and told them to stop fighting. They did not. He saw Claimant get hit above the left eye by Inmate Emerson and start bleeding. He then saw the fork in Mr. Emerson's hand. He then stepped between the inmates, pushed them apart with his forearms and, again, told them to stop fighting and Claimant complied (see Ex. A, p. 1). CO Jones stated that Inmate Emerson and Claimant were allowed to be at the mess hall at the same time, so there was no institutional order requiring that they be separated. He also stated that he did not have any knowledge that Claimant and Mr. Emerson would get into a fight at lunch that day.

"Having assumed physical custody of inmates, who cannot protect and defend themselves in the same way as those at liberty can, the State owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates, even from attacks by fellow inmates" (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 252 [2002]; see Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342, 346 [1947]; Di Donato v State of New York, 25 AD3d 944 [3d Dept 2006]). As in any other negligence action, "the scope of the duty owed by the defendant is defined by the risk of harm reasonably to be perceived" (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 252; see Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; Smith v County of Albany, 12 AD3d 912, 913 [3d Dept 2004]). Even though the "precise manner in which the harm occurred" may not have been foreseeable, liability attaches if it was "within the class of reasonably foreseeable hazards" to which the duty applies (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 252; Rodriguez v City of New York, 38 AD3d 349, 352 [1st Dept 2007]). Moreover, it applies to those risks that were foreseeable, "not simply by actual notice but by actual or constructive notice - by what the 'State knew or had reason to know' " (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 255, quoting dissenting op at 260 [emphasis in original]). In the instant Claim, it encompasses those risks that Defendant reasonably should have foreseen in the context of its operation of a prison and having custody of inmates forcibly surrounded by felons - many of them with a proven capacity for violence (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 256).

At the same time, Defendant's duty to prisoners does not "mandate unremitting surveillance in all circumstances, and does not render the State an insurer of inmate safety. When persons with dangerous criminal propensities are held in close quarters, inevitably there will be some risk of unpreventable assault, a risk the State cannot possibly eradicate. The mere occurrence of an inmate assault, without credible evidence that the assault was reasonably foreseeable, cannot establish the negligence of the State" (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 256; Elnandes v State of New York, 11AD3d 828 [3d Dept 2004]).

The State has been found negligent in inmate-on-inmate assault claims where a claimant was able to establish that the attack was foreseeable because: (1) Defendant knew, or should have known, that the claimant was at risk of assault, yet failed to provide reasonable protection; (2) Defendant knew, or should have known, that the assailant was prone to perpetrate an attack, yet failed to take proper precautionary measures; or (3) Defendant failed to intervene or act when it knew, or should have known, that surrounding conditions were likely to engender or facilitate an attack (Smart v State of New York, UID No. 2007-029-053 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Dec. 21, 2007], affd 65 AD3d 1218 [2d Dept 2009]; Douglas v State of New York, UID No. 2007-028-012 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., May 17, 2007]; Shearin v State of New York, UID No. 2007-028-011 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., May 8, 2007]).

The Court has considered all the evidence, including a review of the exhibits and listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so. The witnesses provided generally sincere and forthright testimony. Nevertheless, the Court finds that Claimant did not meet his burden of proof and failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was negligent in connection with the attack perpetrated upon him.

Claimant failed to establish that Defendant knew, or should have known, that he was at risk of assault and failed to provide reasonable protection. While Mr. Lee testified that, prior to the attack, he knew Inmate Emerson, had roomed with him and "had problems" with him, Claimant had never felt threatened by him, nor was Mr. Emerson on Claimant's enemies list. In addition, Claimant's testimony was clear that he threw his drink on Inmate Emerson because he believed Mr. Emerson was going to attack him. Under the circumstances of this Claim, the Court concludes that Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant knew, or should have known, that Mr. Lee was at a greater risk of assault than any other inmate in the inherently volatile environment of a correctional facility. No evidence was presented to establish that Defendant knew, or should have been expected to know, that Mr. Emerson was prone to perpetrate his attack upon Claimant. Claimant, likewise, failed to establish that Defendant failed to intervene or act when it knew, or should have known, that surrounding conditions created an increased likelihood that an assault would occur.

Claimant failed to establish his Claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence.

All motions and cross-motions are denied as moot. All objections upon which the Court reserved determination during trial, and not otherwise addressed herein, are now overruled.

The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the Claim.

March 9, 2015

Albany, New York

CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Lee v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 9, 2015
# 2015-040-013 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Lee v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE JAMES LEE, SR., 94-B-0823 v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Mar 9, 2015

Citations

# 2015-040-013 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 9, 2015)