Opinion
# 2014-041-065 Claim No. 122901 Motion No. M-85545
11-18-2014
JAMES PORTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JAMES PORTER Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss wrongful/excessive confinement claim as barred by the one-year commencement period set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (3-b) for intentional torts and CPLR § 215 (3) for false imprisonment is denied where claim expressly alleges negligence, in addition to intentional conduct, as a basis for the claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-041-065 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMES PORTER |
| Claimant short name: | PORTER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 122901 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85545 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | JAMES PORTER Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | November 18, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss this wrongful confinement claim on the ground that the claim alleges "the intentional tort of wrongful confinement . . . [and] such unlawful confinement carries a one year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR § 215(3)." Claimant opposes the defendant's motion.
The claim alleges that claimant was placed in keeplock at Clinton Correctional Facility (Clinton) on April 9, 2012 and received an inmate misbehavior report on April 10, 2012, charging claimant with violations of certain facility rules. The claim further alleges that on May 9, 2012, claimant was "released from keep lock confinement without a hearing or disposition."
Claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim on July 9, 2012, within ninety days of his release from confinement, the claim's accrual date, as provided for in Court of Claims §§ 10 (3) and (3-b), respectively:
"3. A claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim . . .
3-b. A claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injuries caused by the intentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, or of a member of the organized militia or of an employee in the division of military and naval affairs of the executive department, shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within one year after the accrual of such claim."
Consequently, claimant was required to serve and file a negligence-based claim within two years after accrual, and a claim based on intentional conduct within one year after accrual. Defendant also asserts the one-year statute of limitations for false imprisonment, set forth in CPLR § 215 (3), as a basis for dismissal.
Claimant served his claim on defendant on July 3, 2013, more than one year, but less than two years, after accrual of his cause of action.
In Matter of Kairis v State of New York (113 AD3d 942 [3d Dept 2014]), the court explained that:
"The applicable statute of limitations for a claim of excessive confinement in the prison disciplinary context depends on whether the claim is predicated on intentional or negligent conduct (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [3], [3-b]; Ramirez v State of New York, 171 Misc 2d 677, 680-682 [1997]; cf. Vazquez v State of New York, 23 Misc 3d 1101[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50527[U], *2 n 2 [2009], affd 77 AD3d 1229 [2010]). Such a claim accrues 'upon a claimant's release from confinement' (Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287, 1287 [2011])"
The Kairis court goes on to acknowledge that the applicable statute of limitations for negligent conduct resulting in excessive confinement is two years (Kairis, 113 AD3d at 942).
Here, the claim explicitly states that the "defendant is liable for the negligent, or in the alternative, intentional, wrongful confinement as a direct result of defendant's agent's failure or refusal to commence the disciplinary proceeding within seven days of the misbehavior report in compliance with 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1 (a) [emphasis added]."
Defendant provides no admissible evidence to show that the confinement of claimant was caused by the intentional, rather than negligent, conduct of defendant.
The claim states a cause of action for negligence resulting in wrongful/excessive confinement, and was commenced within two years of accrual, as required by the Kairis decision.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is denied.
November 18, 2014
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion; filed August 21, 2014
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated August 21, 2014, and attached exhibits;
3. Affirmation of James Porter, filed September 8, 2014, and attached exhibit.