Opinion
# 2019-015-176 Claim No. 127539 Motion No. M-94157 Motion No. M-94204
07-24-2019
ROBERT LOGAN v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Robert Logan, Pro se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim seeking money damages for wrongful confinement following a prison disciplinary hearing was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the Court would be required to review an administrative determination of guilt which remained undisturbed.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-015-176 |
| Claimant(s): | ROBERT LOGAN |
| Claimant short name: | LOGAN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127539 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94157, M-94204 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Robert Logan, 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: | July 24, 2019 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves for dismissal (M-94157) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) on the grounds the claim was untimely served and filed, fails to state a cause of action and alleges facts under which the defendant is immune from liability. In a separate motion (M-94204), claimant moves to compel disclosure.
Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), seeks damages for wrongful confinement arising from the imposition of a 30-day period of "keeplock" confinement to his cell following a prison disciplinary hearing in which he was found guilty of a prison rule violation (defendant's Exhibit B, misbehavior report). Claimant alleges that the misbehavior report was false, and that it was defective in that it was not endorsed by one of the correction officer's who witnessed the incident and failed to contain the correct time and location of the incident. He also alleges the evidence against him was insufficient to support the charge. Claimant filed an administrative appeal, which he alleges in both the claim and his reply to the instant motion was not "answered" (defendant's Exhibit B, ¶ 6; see also claimant's reply affidavit, ¶ 9).
Claimant also sought review of DOCCS' determination in a proceeding pursuant CPLR article 78. By decision of the Hon. Kelly S. McKeighan dated March 17, 2016, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits. Judge McKeighan found that the misbehavior report adequately apprised claimant of the charges against him, that it did not need to be endorsed by all the correction officer's who witnessed the incident, that the record did not support the allegation of Hearing Officer bias, and that the claimant was not restricted in presenting a defense. The decision was affirmed on appeal (Matter of Logan v Miller, 148 AD3d 1383 [3d Dept 2017]).
As a threshold matter, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is limited to claims for money damages (NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9). Where an award of damages requires review of an administrative determination, the Court does not have jurisdiction (Pratow Corp. v State of New York, 148 AD3d 1065 [2d Dept 2017]; Davis v State of New York, 129 AD3d 1353, 1353-1354 [3d Dept 2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 949 [2015]; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v State of New York, 86 AD3d 820, 820 [3d Dept 2011]; Carver v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1393, 1394, [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]). This is because " 'an administrative agency's determination may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an action brought in the Court of Claims' " (Hope for Youth, Inc. v State of New York, 125 AD3d 1211, 1212 [3d Dept 2015]; see also Buonanotte v New York State Off. of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Servs., 60 AD3d 1142, 1143-144 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; Guy v State of New York, 18 AD3d 936, 937 [3d Dept 2005]). Like the wrongful confinement claim at issue in Green v State of New York (90 AD3d 1577 [4th Dept 2011], rearg denied 92 AD3d 1269 [2012], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 18 NY3d 901 [2012]), where the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction because review of a prison disciplinary determination was required, adjudication of the instant claim would similarly require review of a prison disciplinary determination. Accordingly, claimant's recourse was a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant to article 78, which he unsuccessfully pursued. As claimant is unable to relitigate the propriety of his punitive confinement in a claim for money damages in the Court of Claims (Lublin v State of New York, 135 Misc 2d 419, 420 [1987], affd 135 AD2d 1155 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 802 [1988]), his wrongful confinement claim must be dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion (M-94157) is granted and the claim is dismissed. Claimant's motion (M-94204) is denied as moot.
July 24, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: M-94157
1. Notice of motion dated June 24, 2019;M-94204
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, A.A.G. dated June 24, 2019, with Exhibits A-C;
3. Affidavit of Robert Logan sworn to June 28, 2019;
4. Decision of Hon. Kelly S. McKeighan in Matter of Logan v Miller, dated March 17, 2016.
1. Notice of motion dated June 7, 2019;
2. Affidavit of Robert Logan sworn to June 7, 2019;
3. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, A.A.G. dated June 26, 2019, with Exhibit A;
4. Reply affidavit of Robert Logan sworn to July 1, 2019, with Exhibit A.