Opinion
# 2015-015-044 Claim No. 122667 Motion No. M-85956
03-12-2015
WILLIE LONDON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Willie London, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Dismissal motion was granted where arrest and confinement were pursuant to a parole warrant and malicious prosecution cause of action was dismissed because claimant failed to establish that the parole revocation proceeding was terminated in his favor. Lastly, the State is not liable for alleged conduct of local public officials.
Case information
UID: | 2015-015-044 |
Claimant(s): | WILLIE LONDON |
Claimant short name: | LONDON |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 122667 |
Motion number(s): | M-85956 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
Claimant's attorney: | Willie London, Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 12, 2015 |
City: | Saratoga Springs |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, proceeding pro se, seeks damages for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).
The allegations in this 46-page handwritten claim are summarized as follows: Claimant, who is African American, was initially released from prison to parole supervision on March 3, 2008. On January 18, 2012, claimant was involved in a two-car automobile accident in the City of Kingston, New York as a result of which the Kingston Police Department issued appearance tickets to the claimant for driving while intoxicated and failure to yield the right-of-way. Claimant appeared in court on January 26, 2012 at which time bail was set and he was transported to the Ulster County Jail (defendant's Exhibit B, claim, p. 23). On that same date, parole warrant #0629602 was issued (id. at p. 23). Six months later, on June 8, 2012, after witnesses allegedly lied, and reports and evidence were fabricated and withheld from the claimant, a jury found him not guilty of the misdemeanor driving while intoxicated charge (id. at p. 34). On June 18, 2012, claimant states that he was brought before a Judge who, after denying him the right to a trial, found him guilty of failing to yield the right of way (id. at p. 36). Shackled and cuffed, claimant was returned to jail to face the parole violation charges. He appeared for his final parole revocation proceeding on June 25, 2012 at which time he was found guilty of violating the conditions of his parole, and his parole was revoked for 12 months with six months time served. While claimant was imprisoned he became critically ill with meningitis and almost died. On January 25, 2013, claimant was released to parole supervision in the State of Georgia.
Among the papers submitted in opposition to defendant's motion is a part of the parole violation decision, which is dated June 29, 2012. The decision indicates claimant was found guilty of failing to inform the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision of his arrest on January 18, 2012 which resulted in the imposition of a 12-month delinquent time assessment.
Defendant contends that the claim must be dismissed to the extent it is premised upon conduct of local municipal officers and not employees of the State of New York. Defendant also argues that the claim fails to state a cause of action and that certain of the allegations are time-barred. On a motion to dismiss a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) the court is required to "accept the facts as alleged in the [claim] as true, accord [claimant] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]). "When evidentiary material is considered, the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one" (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). Giving claimant the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the facts alleged in the claim fail to state a cause of action.
In addition to the State of New York, the claim originally included the N.Y.S. Division of Parole, Governor Andrew Cuomo, Parole Supervisor Jill Lenard-Horne, Parole Officer Steve Rosenblum, ADA Matthew Jankowski, Ulster County, New York State Police Laboratory, and the New York State Police. The caption was amended, sua sponte, by Order dated June 28, 2013 to reflect the State of New York as the only properly named defendant.
Initially, the Court of Claims is a Court of limited jurisdiction empowered to award damages in claims sounding in appropriation, contract or tort against the State of New York (see NY Const, art VI, § 9; Court of Claims Act § 9) and certain other specified entities (see, e.g., Education Law § 6224 [4]; Public Authorities Law §§ 163-a, 212-a, 361-b and 2622). Employees of the City of Kingston Police Department and Ulster County are not State employees (Public Officers Law § 2; General Construction Law § 66 [2]; County Law § 3). To the extent the claim alleges causes of action for false arrest, imprisonment, and malicious prosecution arising from the conduct of the Kingston Police Officers who arrested him, the Ulster County Jail staff which confined him, and the Ulster County District Attorney's Office which prosecuted him, the State is not subject to liability, under a theory of respondeat superior, because they are not officers or employees of the State (see Fisher v State of New York, 10 NY2d 60 [1961]; Fuller v State of New York, 11 AD3d 365 [1st Dept 2004]; Whitmore v State of New York, 55 AD2d 745 [3d Dept 1976], lv denied 42 NY2d 810 [1977]).
Notably, claimant commenced an action against the City of Kingston in the Supreme Court which ended in dismissal (see defendant's Exhibit E and the summary judgment motion attached to claimant's opposition papers).
To the extent the claim may be read to include a cause of action for malicious prosecution arising from the parole violation proceeding which had been brought against him, the claim fails to state a cause of action. "The elements of an action for malicious prosecution are (1) the initiation of a proceeding, (2) its termination favorably to plaintiff, (3) lack of probable cause, and (4) malice" (Colon v City of New York, 60 NY2d 78, 82 [1983]). Here, both the allegations in the claim and the documentary evidence submitted in opposition to the motion establish that claimant was found guilty of violating the conditions of his parole. Insofar as claimant failed to allege or otherwise establish in opposition to the motion (Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d at 275) that the parole revocation proceeding was terminated in his favor, the claim fails to state a cause of action for malicious prosecution (cf. Green v State of New York, 39 Misc 3d 1239 [A] [Ct Cl 2013]).
With regard to any false arrest and imprisonment cause of action based upon the parole violation charges, the Court of Appeals has made clear that " '[a] detention, otherwise unlawful, is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction' " (Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389, 395 [2011], quoting Davis v City of Syracuse, 66 NY2d 840, 842 [1985]). Here, by claimant's own allegations, his arrest and confinement were pursuant to a parole warrant. Insofar as it is not alleged that the parole warrant was invalid, the claim fails to state a cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment.
Based on the foregoing, the defendant's motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
March 12, 2015
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
Notice of motion dated November 14, 2014;
Affirmation of Thomas R. Monjeau dated November 14, 2014 with exhibits;
[Affidavit] of Willie London sworn to December 5, 2014 with exhibits;
Reply affirmation of Thomas R. Monjeau dated December 17, 2014.