Opinion
# 2012-038-503 Claim No. 115252 Motion No. M-80637
01-04-2012
SANTOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss PRS claim for failure to state a cause of action granted (see Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389 [2011]). Case information
UID: 2012-038-503 Claimant(s): VICTOR SANTOS Claimant short name: SANTOS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 115252 Motion number(s): M-80637 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: W. BROOKS DeBOW Claimant's attorney: JOEL BERGER, Esq. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE Defendant's attorney: OF NEW YORK By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: January 4, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant has filed this claim seeking damages allegedly arising from the unauthorized administrative imposition of a period of post-release supervision (PRS) following his release from incarceration. Defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action. Claimant does not oppose defendant's motion, but expressly reserves the right to prosecute his Federal constitutional claims in Federal court (see Berger Affirmation, ¶ 3).
The claim alleges that claimant was subject to PRS from the time of his release from State incarceration on December 6, 2005, and was subsequently arrested and incarcerated shortly after July 9, 2006, after being found in violation of conditions of his PRS. Claimant was incarcerated in a State correctional facility until October 30, 2007, at which time he was released pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus, granted on the ground that his PRS was illegally imposed (see People ex rel. Santos v Warden, 17 Misc 3d 1120[A] [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2007] [Claim, Ex. B]).
The Court of Appeals has held that the intentional tort of wrongful confinement is not established where, as here, there is no allegation that the process by which claimant was arrested for violating his PRS was invalid (see Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389, 395 [2011]). Further, to the extent that the claim alleges that defendant's employees were negligent in imposing a period of PRS upon claimant, the Court of Appeals has held that such conduct is discretionary, and that the State is immune from liability for the consequences of that discretionary conduct (see id., at 395-396). Indeed, claimant's counsel candidly concedes that this claim against the State of New York in this Court is foreclosed by application of Donald (see Berger Affirmation, ¶2). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-80637 is GRANTED, and claim number 115252 is DISMISSED.
January 4, 2012
Albany, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Verified Claim for Damages, Number 115252, filed May 15, 2008, with Exhibits A-C;
(2) Verified Answer, filed June 24, 2008;
(3) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated November 8, 2011;
(4) Affirmation in Support of Michael T. Krenrich, AAG, dated November 7, 2011, with
Exhibit A;
(5) Affirmation of Joel Berger, Esq., dated November 18, 2011.