Opinion
# 2021-041-026 Claim No. 134856 Motion No. M-96596
04-29-2021
JOSEPH VIDAL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JOSEPH VIDAL Pro Se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment in wrongful confinement action based upon disciplinary determination which was reversed in Article 78 proceeding is denied where claimant fails to show, as a matter of law, that defendant's quasi-judicial hearing immunity is abrogated by defendant's violation of disciplinary hearing regulations; issue of fact exists as to whether claimant suffered prejudice at the disciplinary hearing due to defendant's violation of disciplinary hearing regulation.
Case information
| UID: | 2021-041-026 |
| Claimant(s): | JOSEPH VIDAL |
| Claimant short name: | VIDAL |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134856 |
| Motion number(s): | M-96596 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | JOSEPH VIDAL Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 29, 2021 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment as to defendant's liability for wrongfully confining claimant at Clinton Correctional Facility (Clinton) as a result of an inmate disciplinary proceeding. Defendant opposes the motion.
The amended claim alleges that claimant, an inmate at Clinton, was wrongfully confined to keeplock and suffered loss of privileges and other damages as a result of a disciplinary hearing determination, issued on October 21, 2019, which found claimant guilty of violent conduct, creating a disturbance and fighting, arising from an alleged fight involving two fellow inmates on October 3, 2019.
Claimant administratively appealed the disciplinary determination, alleging that he was denied his regulatory and constitutional right to call one of the two fellow inmates involved in the fight as a witness at the hearing.
The disciplinary hearing determination was administratively affirmed on November 18, 2019. Claimant was released from keeplock on December 2, 2019.
Claimant commenced an Article 78 proceeding on February 17, 2020 to reverse and expunge the disciplinary determination, again alleging that he was denied his regulatory and constitutional right to call a witness at the hearing.
On August 5, 2020, the disciplinary determination underlying the claimant's wrongful confinement cause of action was reversed and expunged pursuant to a Judgment of the Albany County Supreme Court (Vidal v Annucci, Index No. 9164-19, [Supreme Court, Albany County, W. Brooks DeBow, Acting Supreme Court Justice, August 5, 2020]).
Defendant's answer sets forth affirmative defenses alleging that the defendant's purportedly negligent and/or intentional acts and/or omissions were legally privileged and immune from liability.
The standard for review of the motion is well-established. "A motion for summary judgment should be entertained only after the moving party has established, by competent admissible evidence, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . If the movant meets this initial burden, the opposing party is required to submit evidence which raises a material issue of fact to preclude an award of summary judgment" (Ware v Baxter Health Care Corp., 25 AD3d 863, 864 [3d Dept 2006]).
Once the moving party has satisfied this obligation, the burden shifts and the party opposing the motion must demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue (Svoboda v Our Lady of Lourdes Mem. Hosp., Inc., 31 AD3d 877 [3d Dept 2006]).
Summary judgment is "a drastic remedy" (Lebanon Val. Landscaping, v Town of Moriah, 258 AD2d 732, 733 [3d Dept 1999]). It "is the procedural equivalent of a trial . . . and should be granted only when it has been established that there is no triable issue of material fact" (Harris v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 512, 517 [Ct Cl 2001]; see Paulin v Needham, 28 AD3d 531 [2d Dept 2006]).
To establish that he was wrongfully confined, claimant must 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], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellogg, 423 US 929 [1975]; Krzyzak v Schaefer, 52 AD3d 979 [3d Dept 2008]).
With respect to whether a confinement is privileged, Holmberg v County of Albany (291 AD2d 610, 612 [3d Dept 2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 604 [2002]), instructs that: "Generally, where a facially valid order issued by a court with proper jurisdiction directs confinement, that confinement is privileged . . . and everyone connected with the matter is protected from liability for false imprisonment."
In the context of confinement pursuant to a prison disciplinary proceeding, such confinement is "privileged to the extent that it was under color of law or regulation, specifically in accordance with [inmate misbehavior] regulations" (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 402 [Ct Cl 1986]).
Claimant alleges that defendant violated 7 NYCRR 254.5:
"(a) The inmate may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals. If permission to call a witness is denied, the hearing officer shall give the inmate a written statement stating the reasons for the denial, including the specific threat to institutional safety or correctional goals presented."
The Judgment of the Supreme Court in claimant's successful CPLR Article 78 proceeding against defendant challenging the disciplinary hearing determination (Vidal v Annucci, Index No. 9164-19, [Supreme Court, Albany County, W. Brooks DeBow, Acting Supreme Court Justice, August 5, 2020]) held that:
"[P]etitioners regulatory rights under 7 NYCRR 254.5 (a) were violated inasmuch as HO Crandall failed to give petitioner a written statement stating the reasons for the denial of inmate Sheppard as a witness . . . Moreover, and contrary to respondent's contentions, the Court concludes that petitioner's constitutional right to call witnesses at the Superintendent Hearing was violated."
Based upon the Albany County Supreme Court Judgment, together with claimant's uncontradicted allegation in his amended claim and in his affidavit in support of his summary judgment motion, all showing that claimant was denied his constitutional and regulatory right to call a named relevant witness at his hearing, the Court finds that claimant has met his initial burden to present a prima facie case of wrongful confinement based upon the defendant's demonstrated failure to follow its own rules and regulations in conducting the disciplinary hearing.
In particular, claimant's proof shows that defendant failed to comply with 7 NYCRR 253.5 (a) and 254.5, which codify claimant's right to call materially relevant, non-cumulative witnesses on his behalf at the disciplinary hearing and to be provided a written statement of the reasons for the denial of the requested witness testimony.
In opposition to claimant's motion, defendant relies upon the quasi-judicial governmental immunity defense set forth in its answer.
That defense provides that where employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, in commencing and conducting formal inmate disciplinary proceedings, "act under the authority of and in full compliance with the governing statutes and regulations . . . their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State has absolute immunity" (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 [1988]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 2001]). This immunity attaches even if the conviction is later reversed administratively or as the result of a successful CPLR Article 78 proceeding (see Arteaga, 72 NY2d at 215).
If, however, prison officials fail to comply with a rule or regulation governing such disciplinary hearings, absolute immunity may be lost and liability for money damages may be imposed if it is proven that the regulatory violation involved minimal due process protections (Sira v Morton, 380 F3d 57, 69 [2d Cir 2004]) and caused actual prejudice or injury to the inmate at the hearing (see Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089, 1089 [3d Dept 2009]; Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 825 [3d Dept 2004]).
Here, the regulation violated by defendant (failing to produce a witness requested by claimant) implicated minimal due process protections but claimant's motion papers fail to prove, as a matter of law, that the failure to produce the requested witness and/or provide a written statement of the reasons for the denial of the requested witness testimony caused actual prejudice or injury to claimant at the disciplinary hearing.
Specifically, the claimant has offered no proof whatsoever that the requested testimony of claimant's fellow inmate would have changed the outcome of claimant's disciplinary hearing or had any effect at all on the disciplinary determination which resulted in claimant's confinement.
Accordingly, the Court finds that while defendant violated the minimal due process requirement to provide a fair disciplinary hearing, claimant has failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that he was wrongfully confined and entitled to money damages by reason of the defendant's constitutional and regulatory violation.
Claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
April 29, 2021
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 26, 2021; 2. Affidavit "1" of Joseph Vidal, sworn to March 23, 2021, and attached exhibits; 3. Affidavit "2" of Joseph Vidal, sworn to March 23, 2021; 4. Affirmation in Opposition of Michael T. Krenrich, dated April 12, 2021, and attached exhibit; 5. Reply Affidavit of Joseph Vidal, sworn to April 15, 2021, and attached exhibit.