Opinion
# 2012-015-320 Claim No. 119353 Motion No. M-80708 Cross-Motion # 2012-015-320 Claim No. CM-80760 # 2012-015-320 Claim No. CM-80821
04-02-2012
LORET v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss pro se inmate's wrongful confinement claim arising from disciplinary determination which was reversed for lack of sufficient evidence was granted. Defendant was immune from liability for its discretionary determinations. Case information
UID: 2012-015-320 Claimant(s): DAVID LORET Claimant short name: LORET Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119353 Motion number(s): M-80708 Cross-motion number(s): CM-80760, CM-80821 Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS Claimant's attorney: David Loret, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: April 2, 2012 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves (Motion No. M-80708) for a "Single Stage Trial"; defendant cross-moves (Motion No. CM-80760) for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (5) and (7), and claimant cross-moves (Motion No. M-80821) for an Order denying defendant's cross-motion and scheduling a trial.
Claimant seeks damages for "wrongful excessive confinement" arising from a 30-day period of punitive confinement imposed on October 29, 2009 following a Tier III disciplinary determination (Claim, ¶ 2). On December 30, 2010 the Appellate Division, Third Department, annulled the determination of the Tier III Hearing Officer, finding "substantial evidence does not support the determination of guilt" (Matter of Loret v Bezio, 79 AD3d 1561 [2010]). The instant claim was filed on January 12, 2011 and served on January 13, 2011.
In support of its cross-motion, defendant contends the claim fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and 22 NYCRR § 206.6; that the defendant is immune from liability and that the claim was untimely filed and served. Inasmuch as this motion is dispositive, it will be addressed first.
In deciding claimant's prior motion to dismiss defenses (Motion No. M-79762), this Court previously determined that the claim sufficiently stated "the time when and the place where the claim arose" for purposes of the pleading requirements of Court of Claims act § 11 (b), a determination which is the law of the case and may not now be relitigated (Briggs v Chapman, 53 AD3d 900, 901 [2008]). To the extent the defendant additionally contends that the items of damages were not sufficiently set forth in the claim, this contention lacks merit. Claimant's allegation that he was wrongfully confined for 30 days following the disciplinary determination of guilt on October 29, 2009 is sufficiently specific to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and 22 NYCRR 206.6.
It is well-settled that actions of correctional facility employees taken in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures are quasi-judicial in nature and entitled to absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 218-220 [1988]; Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [2009]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 766 [2001]; Mitchell v State of New York, 32 AD3d 594 [2006]; DuBois v State of New York, 25 Misc 3d 1137 [Ct Cl 2009]). Only where a correctional facility employee acts outside the scope of his or her authority or violates the governing statutes or regulations does the State lose its defense of absolute immunity (Arteaga at 220-221). No such facts have been alleged here. Indeed, the determination of guilt was annulled by the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon a finding that the administrative determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals in Arteaga made clear that "actions of Correction Department employees in preparing and filing misbehavior reports, confining inmates, and making dispositions following Superintendents' hearings entail discretionary decisions in furtherance of general policies and purposes where the exercise of reasoned judgment can produce different acceptable results" (Arteaga at 219). The fact that the evidence presented in the claimant's disciplinary hearing was legally insufficient to sustain the Hearing Officer's determination of guilt does not require a different result or alter the discretionary character of the determination.
Because a finding of immunity fully resolves the controversy and requires dismissal of the claim, the Court need not address the issue of the claim's timeliness.
Based on the foregoing, defendant's cross-motion (Motion No. CM-80760) is granted and the claim is dismissed. Claimant's motions (Motion Nos. M-80708; CM-80821) are denied.
April 2, 2012
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion (M-80708) dated October 26, 2011;
2. Affidavit of David Loret sworn to October 26, 2011 with attachments;
3. Notice of cross-motion (CM-80760) dated December 14, 2011;
4. Affirmation of Thomas R. Monjeau dated December 14, 2011 with exhibits;
5. Notice of cross-motion (CM-80821) dated December 22, 2011;
6. "Affirmation" of David Loret dated December 22, 2011 with exhibits