Opinion
# 2021-015-045 Claim No. 135803 Motion No. M-96467
04-22-2021
PRINCE LEWIS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Prince Lewis, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Wrongful confinement claim was dismissed as untimely.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-015-045 |
| Claimant(s): | PRINCE LEWIS |
| Claimant short name: | LEWIS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135803 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96467 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Prince Lewis, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 22, 2021 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the instant claim pursuant to 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) on the grounds the claim was untimely served and filed.
Claimant, proceeding pro se, alleges a cause of action for wrongful confinement arising from his incarceration in the Albany County Jail from September 19, 2017 through November 30, 2017. Claimant alleges he was wrongfully confined for a parole violation at a time when he was not on parole.
Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b) requires that an intentional tort claim, such as one for wrongful confinement, be filed and served within 90 days after the accrual of the claim unless a notice of intention to file a claim is served within that time period "in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within one year after the accrual of such claim." The State's waiver of immunity under Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act is conditioned upon claimant's compliance with the specific conditions to suit set forth in article II of the Court of Claims Act, including the time limitations set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (Lyles v State of New York, 3 NY3d 396, 400 [2004]; Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159 [2001]). As a result, "[a] failure to comply with the time provisions of Court of Claims Act § 10 divests the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction" (Steele v State of New York, 145 AD3d 1363, 1364 [3d Dept 2016]; see also Maude V. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 82 AD3d 1468, 1469 [3d Dept 2011]; Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2014]; Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003 [3d Dept 2013]). A claim for wrongful confinement accrues upon a claimant's release from confinement because it is on that date damages become reasonably ascertainable ( Dawes v State of New York, 167 AD3d 1099 [3d Dept 2018]; Campos v State of New York, 139 AD3d 1276 [3d Dept 2016]; Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2011]; Burks v State of New York, 119 AD3d 1302 [3d Dept 2014]). Here, the claim was clearly untimely.
To the extent claimant seeks to hold the State liable for the conduct of the Albany County Sheriff in confining him, each county is responsible for maintaining its own jails (County Law § 217) and the tort liability of the State may only be predicated on the conduct "of its officers or employees while acting as such officers or employees" (Court of Claims Act § 9 [2]). As a result, liability may not be imputed to the State for the conduct of Albany County in the operation of its jail (see see Eddy v State of New York, Ct Cl, Oct. 2, 2006, Sise, A.J., claim No. None, UID 2006-028-581; Fonfa v State of New York, 88 Misc 2d 343 [Ct Cl, 1976]).
Although the claimant alleges that he was released from confinement on November 30, 2017, his notice of intention was not served until December 12, 2019 (it was verified on September 25, 2019), and the claim was not filed until December 31, 2020, long after the 90-day period to do so had expired. To the extent claimant appears to contend that a Judgment entered in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 may defer the accrual of his wrongful confinement cause of action, a similar argument was raised and rejected by the Appellate Division, Third Department in Briggs v State of N.Y. Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision (163 AD3d 1306 [3d Dept 2018], appeal dismissed 32 NY3d 1133 [2019], lv denied 33 NY3d 903 [2019]). Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed as untimely. Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
April 22, 2021
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered:
1. Notice of motion dated January 29, 2021;
2. Affirmation in support dated January 29, 2021, with Exhibits A and B;
3. Claimant's opposition to motion dated April 11, 2021, with Exhibits.