From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Varela v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 24, 2001
283 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

May 24, 2001.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (McNamara, J.), filed August 29, 2000, which denied claimant's motion for summary judgment.

Alberto Varela, Ossining, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Frank Brady of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and, Mugglin, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Following the administrative reversal of a determination finding claimant guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules, claimant commenced this action to recover damages for alleged wrongful confinement based upon his placement on keeplock status as a result of the disciplinary proceeding. After issue was joined, claimant moved for summary judgment on his claim and he now appeals from the Court of Claims' denial of the motion. We affirm.

Insofar as they relate to inmate discipline, the actions of correctional facility employees are quasi-judicial in nature and, unless the employees exceeded the scope of their authority or violated applicable rules and regulations, the State has absolute immunity for those actions (see, Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 212, 214, 218-220). Claimant's allegations of wrongful conduct by the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report and the Hearing Officer who conducted the tier II disciplinary hearing do not demonstrate his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. On its face, the misbehavior report was in compliance with the relevant regulation (see, 7 NYCRR 251-3.1) and the report could serve as the basis for the disciplinary determination (see, Matter of Foster v. Coughlin, 76 N.Y.2d 964, 966). It does not appear that claimant was entitled to employee assistance at the tier II hearing (see, Matter of Booker v. Rivera, 276 A.D.2d 985) and his claims of Hearing Officer bias and other misconduct are not supported by evidentiary proof in admissible form. Accordingly, the Court of Claims did not err in denying the motion.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Varela v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 24, 2001
283 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Varela v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALBERTO VARELA, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 24, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
724 N.Y.S.2d 917

Citing Cases

Colson v. State

As relevant here, "[d]efendant's confinement of claimant . . . is privileged if it was in accordance with the…

Ayuso v. State

Thus, defendant's liability in this case turns upon whether or not its confinement of claimant in the SHU was…