Opinion
# 2012-040-047 Claim No. 116268 Motion No. M-77699
06-27-2012
LOPEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
State's motion to dismiss PRS claim granted. Case information
UID: 2012-040-047 Claimant(s): ADRIAN LOPEZ Claimant short name: LOPEZ Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 116268 Motion number(s): M-77699 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY Claimant's attorney: Robert G. Spevack, Esq. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General of the State of New York By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., AAG Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: June 27, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on the basis that the Claim fails to state a valid cause of action against the Defendant is granted.
This Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on January 2, 2009, seeks damages for a period of unlawful confinement resulting from an alleged illegal imposition of a period of post-release supervision (PRS) by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS)following a judicially-imposed sentence of incarceration.
Effective April 2011, the Department of Correctional Services and Division of Parole were merged to form the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
Defendant moves to dismiss the Claim for failure to state a cause of action. Defense counsel asserts that the administrative imposition of PRS by DOCS was privileged. The Claim characterizes DOCS's actions both in terms of negligence as well as wrongful incarceration (Claim, ¶¶ 2, 7).
Since the instant motion was filed and served, the Court of Appeals in Donald v State of New York (17 NY3d 389 [2011]) has had occasion to address similar PRS claims. In Donald, the Court of Appeals stated that false imprisonment causes of action failed because the claimants failed to allege that their confinement was not privileged (id. at 395). The Court also specifically stated that an otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction (id.). As in Donald, in this instance Claimant did not allege "any defect in the process by which he … was arrested for violating PRS, or in the jurisdiction of the court that issued that process" (id.). The Court of Appeals based its determination that the confinement was privileged, not on the determination of DOCS to impose PRS, but, rather, upon the absence of any allegation that there was a defect in either the process by which the Donald claimants were arrested or in the jurisdiction of the Court that issued the process.
The Court of Appeals also stated that the PRS claims in Donald could be read as asserting causes of action for negligence in subjecting them to unauthorized PRS terms. Each of them failed because "DOCS's actions in recording PRS terms as part of claimants' sentences were discretionary" (id.), and it held that the State is immune from liability for such a discretionary act (id. at 396). Therefore, whether the Claim is read to assert a cause of action for wrongful confinement, or negligence, it fails to state a cause of action.
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's motion is granted, and the Claim is dismissed.
June 27, 2012
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Defendant's motion:
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affirmation
In Support & Exhibits Attached 1
Affirmation in Opposition 2
Filed papers: Claim, Answer