Opinion
# 2016-044-015 Claim No. 120123
12-14-2016
JEFFREY MINEO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JEFFREY MINEO, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Mark Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Inmate claimant's wrongful confinement claim dismissed after trial. Pre-hearing confinement was privileged, and there is not requirement that pre-hearing confinement be credited toward the penalty imposed after the disciplinary hearing.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-044-015 |
| Claimant(s): | JEFFREY MINEO |
| Claimant short name: | MINEO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120123 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | JEFFREY MINEO, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Mark Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 14, 2016 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim to recover damages for his allegedly wrongful confinement in a Special Housing Unit (SHU) as a result of a disciplinary hearing held in October 2010 while he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) at Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira). Defendant State of New York's (defendant's) previous motion to dismiss the claim based upon lack of service was denied (Mineo v State of New York, Ct Cl, Aug. 3, 2016, Schaewe, J., Claim No. 120123, Motion No. M-88753). A trial in this matter was conducted by video conference on December 7, 2016, with the parties appearing at Elmira, and the Court sitting in Binghamton, New York.
In his claim, claimant alleged that on September 20, 2010, he was confined in SHU and ultimately issued a misbehavior report (the First Misbehavior Report) charging him with a violation of Prison Disciplinary Rules 101.10 (Sex Offense) and 180.10 (Facility Visiting Violation). He stated that on October 5, 2010, he was found guilty of the charges contained in the First Misbehavior Report and sentenced to four months confinement in SHU. At trial, claimant testified that he was alleged to have been "fondling his girl," but that a video recording of the encounter would have disproved the charge. He stated that the Hearing Officer told him that he (the Hearing Officer) had viewed it. Claimant further contended that because he was attempting to prove his innocence of the charges in the First Misbehavior Report, he was issued two additional misbehavior reports.
All quotes are taken from the Court's notes of the proceeding unless otherwise indicated.
Claimant said that while awaiting the hearing on the charges contained in the First Misbehavior Report, he was issued a misbehavior report for conduct which occurred on October 2, 2010 (the Second Misbehavior Report) in which he was charged with violation of Prison Disciplinary Rules 104.11 (Violent Conduct), 107.10 (Interference with Employee), 107.11 (Harassment), 106.10 (refusing a Direct Order) and 102.10 (Threats). On October 18, 2010, claimant was found guilty of all the charges contained in the Second Misbehavior Report except violent conduct. He was sentenced to 60 days confinement in SHU for these disciplinary infractions.
Claimant stated that he was charged with a violation of Prison Disciplinary Rule 114.10 (Smuggling) (the Third Misbehavior Report) for conduct allegedly occurring on November 9, 2010. Claimant testified that he was convicted of this charge and sentenced to three months confinement in SHU.
Claimant said that on December 14, 2010 the disciplinary determination which resulted from the First Misbehavior Report was reversed on the ground that he was not allowed to view the video of his conduct.
Claimant stated that once the first disciplinary determination was reversed, he should only have had to serve five months confinement in SHU in accordance with the determinations based upon the Second and Third Misbehavior Reports. He also stated that 11 days had been cut from his sentences on these 2 determinations because of good behavior. According to DOCCS, the time cut changed his release date from March 1, 2011 to February 22, 2011. However, claimant alleges that his release date from the combined sentences should have been February 20, 2011 (five months after his initial pre-hearing confinement on the First Misbehavior Report) rather than March 1, 2011 and then after the time-cut for good behavior, he should have been released on February 11, 2011. In other words, claimant is arguing that he should have been credited with the 11 days of pre-hearing confinement that he served in SHU from September 20, 2010 through October 1, 2010 while awaiting his hearing on the charges from the First Misbehavior Report (because on October 2, 2010 he was issued the Second Misbehavior Report and presumably would have been confined to SHU) and this 11-day credit would have reduced his time from February 22, 2011 to February 11, 2011.
Claim, ¶ 15.
When asked what regulation had been violated by the Hearing Officer's refusal to show him the video during his hearing on the First Misbehavior Report, claimant said he did not know but pointed out that the refusal to allow him to view the video was the basis for the reversal of his conviction on those charges.
Claim, Exhibit D.
Claimant appears to be alleging that defendant's failure to show him the videotape during the hearing was a violation of the rules and regulations governing disciplinary hearings and as a result, defendant lost its immunity and he therefore should be credited with the 11 days of pre-hearing confinement.
Claimant rested his case at the close of his testimony. Defendant moved to dismiss on the basis that the pre-hearing confinement was privileged, and moreover that there was no obligation to credit claimant's pre-hearing confinement time to any subsequent sentence. The Court reserved decision on the motion. Defendant did not present any witnesses and rested its case subsequent to making the motion. The Court reserved decision.
In order to establish a prima facie case of wrongful confinement - a "species" of the tort of false imprisonment (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 407 [Ct Cl 1986]) - a claimant must show that "(1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the [claimant] was conscious of the confinement, (3) the [claimant] did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged" (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]).
Despite the reversal of the determination on the First Misbehavior Report, it is clear that claimant's pre-hearing confinement was privileged. DOCCS regulations authorize SHU confinements in cases where an inmate has been charged with violating prison rules and is awaiting a disciplinary hearing or a superintendent's hearing. 7 NYCRR 301.3 (a) provides "Detention admissions [to SHU] may be used in the following cases: (1) in the case of an inmate who is awaiting initial appearance before or determination of a disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing." In accordance with this provision, Claimant's confinement in SHU was privileged from September 20, 2010 through October 2, 2010, the date of the Second Misbehavior Report. Moreover, there is nothing in DOCCS regulations which requires claimant's pre-hearing confinement be credited toward the penalty imposed after the disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Melluzzo v Goord, 250 AD2d 893, 895 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 814 [1998]; Matter of Fama v Mann, 196 AD2d 919 [3d Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 662 [1993]; see also Matter of Mastropietro v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 52 AD3d 1125 [3d Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 711 [2008]; Matter of Starks v Goord, 2 AD3d 1117 [3d Dept 2003]; Washington v State of New York, UID No. 2009-032-149 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Sept. 22, 2009]).
Claimant has failed to establish a prima facie case and accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss Claim No. 120123 is hereby granted. Any and all motions on which the Court may have previously reserved or which were not previously determined, are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
December 14, 2016
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims