Opinion
# 2019-018-041 Claim No. NONE Motion No. M-93455
07-16-2019
GARY TEASLEY v. STATE OF NEW YORK
GARY TEASLEY Pro Se LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christopher J. Kalil, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Movant's application to file a late claim is denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-018-041 |
| Claimant(s): | GARY TEASLEY |
| Claimant short name: | TEASLEY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has amended the caption sua sponte to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | NONE |
| Motion number(s): | M-93455 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DIANE L. FITZPATRICK |
| Claimant's attorney: | GARY TEASLEY Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Christopher J. Kalil, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 16, 2019 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Movant brings a motion seeking permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of
Claims Act section 10 (6). Defendant opposes the motion.
The proposed claim is similar to a previously filed claim and seeks damages for "unlawful confinement" on the grounds that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) held Movant, an inmate, beyond the maximum expiration date for his prison sentence of 1½ to 3 years imposed on August 20, 2015. Movant alleges that he was arrested on January 29, 2014, a parole revocation hearing was held on February 14, 2014, for an undischarged 2009 sentence with 1 year, 9 months and 23 days remaining. Movant indicates that he complied with all recommended programs, received his eligibility certificate making his conditional release date October 12, 2017, which he alleges is the date of accrual for his cause of action. It is unclear from these submissions when Movant was actually released, but from the previously filed claim, October 12, 2017 was referred to as the date he was released from confinement. Movant alleges that the maximum expiration date of November 20, 2018 reflects that 1 year, 9 months and 23 days was added to his 3-year sentence. Movant also alleges that his imposed sentence was changed by DOCCS.
The claim previously filed on January 19, 2018, seeking damages for the same cause of action, was dismissed as untimely and improperly served. Claimant now seeks permission to file and serve the proposed late claim. Court of Claims Act section 10 (6) allows a claimant who has failed to properly serve a notice of intention or who has failed to file and properly serve a claim within the time frame set forth in Court of Claims Act section 10 to make an application to the Court to file such a claim, in the discretion of the Court, at any time before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the State would be barred under article two of the CPLR (Court of Claims Act § 10[6]).
Teasley v State of New York, Unreported, (Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick J., Cl No. 130878, Motion No. M-92639).
An unlawful confinement cause of action is, in most cases, an intentional tort. Here, the allegations in the proposed claim assert that DOCCS intentionally added time to his sentence and changed the sentence that had been imposed. The cause of action accrues upon the release from confinement. Movant alleges that the date of accrual is October 12, 2017. Movant served this motion on January 10, 2019, and filed it on January 23, 2019. Movant's motion is untimely (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]; 215 [3]).
Under some factual circumstances, the cause of action may sound in negligence (see Ramirez v State of New York, 171 Misc 2d 677, 682 [Ct Cl 1997]). --------
However, even if the Court were to consider the factors for determining whether a late claim should be permitted to be filed and served the application would have to be denied. First, Movant has not asserted a reasonable excuse for the delay in bringing a properly filed and served claim (see Matter of Thomas v State of New York, 272 AD2d 650 [3d Dept 2000] [ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse]). Movant has also not shown that his claim has potential merit. Movant does not challenge the underlying sentence or orders for his commitment from 2015, he asserts that DOCCS added time to his maximum sentence. A cause of action for wrongful confinement, requires a claimant to ultimately prove 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]). Confinement is "privileged to the extent that it was [imposed] under color of law or regulation". (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 402 [Ct Cl 1986]). Defendant submits the affirmation of Jarrod Stanford, Assistant Counsel to the Office of Sentencing Review. Mr. Stanford sets forth in depth the calculation of Movant's sentences, his convictions and parole violations. He also makes clear that when Movant was sentenced in 2015, his sentence ran consecutively with his 2009 sentence. His confinement was privileged based upon the imposed sentences, his parole violations and statutory requirements.
Movant also had another remedy to address the alleged improper calculation of his sentence in that he could have brought an Article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Hot v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 79 AD3d 1383 [3d Dept 2010]).
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing Movant's application must be DENIED.
July 16, 2019
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court has considered the following in deciding this motion: 1) "Motion for Permission to File a Late Claim" of Gary Teasley, verified December 21, 2018, in support, with attachments thereto. 2) Affirmation of Christopher J. Kalil, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, in opposition, with attachments thereto. 3) "Respond To Affirmation in Opposition To Motion For Permission To Late File A Claim" by Gary Teasley, in support, dated April 24, 2019.