Opinion
# 2021-059-004 Claim No. 135134 Motion No. M-95958
01-13-2021
ANTHONY WAGER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
No Appearance HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2021-059-004 |
| Claimant(s): | ANTHONY WAGER |
| Claimant short name: | WAGER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 135134 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95958 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | HON. MAUREEN T. LICCIONE |
| Claimant's attorney: | No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 13, 2021 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
This is a claim against the State of New York (State or Defendant) by an inmate, Anthony Wager, pro se (Claimant or Wager), who was incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility at the time the alleged claim arose. The claim asserts that Wager was wrongfully found guilty of drug use, which resulted in the loss of privileges and confinement in keeplock for thirty days ending on June 6, 2019, because the urinalysis which resulted in his guilty disposition was administered improperly. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (a) (7), and Court of Claims Act (CCA) § 10 (3) (b) and § 11 (b). Claimant has not responded to the motion.
The claim asserts that on May 8, 2019 Claimant and several other inmates provided urine specimens which subsequently tested positive for buprenorphine. A misbehavior report issued the next day charged Claimant with drug use and a family reunion violation. The claim asserts that several other charges of drug use against other inmates stemming from urinalysis testing on May 8, 2019 were dismissed where the inmate testified that he was innocent and "that the officer performed the calibration operation on 05/06/19 for the test procedure he performed on 05/08/19." The claim states that Claimant was the only inmate charged with drug use from the May 8, 2019 urinalysis testing who did not have his charges dismissed because he had a different hearing officer who allowed the hearing to proceed.
Claimant's disciplinary hearing commenced on May 14, 2019 but was adjourned until May 30, 2019 whereat Claimant was found guilty of all charges. An appeal was denied by the facility superintendent on July 24, 2019; the claim states that "[m]onths later the May 30, 2019 disposition was vacated." No further information regarding the reasoning for the disposition having been vacated is provided.
"[T]he State is accorded absolute immunity for the actions of its employees involved in the investigation and prosecution of disciplinary charges brought against inmates in a correctional facility and for the actions of the hearing officer charged with presiding over and reviewing such matters. This immunity covers discretionary conduct due to its quasi-judicial nature, even if that discretion was erroneously exercised or the findings were subsequently overturned" (Haddock v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-015 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., March 7, 2018], citing Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159 [3d Dept 2013]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [3d Dept 2001]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 2001]). Absolute immunity may be lost, however, if the State acted in contravention of a governing rule or regulation which caused the inmate to suffer actual prejudice or a deprivation of his due process rights (see Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [3d Dept 2009]; Arteaga v State of New York 72 NY2d 212 [1998]).
The alleged violation of drug testing protocols has been held "not to relate to the due process concerns of [a] hearing and do not serve as a basis for [a] wrongful confinement cause of action" (Miller v State of New York, 156 AD3d 1067, 1067 [3d Dept 2017]). Even where a disciplinary hearing determination of guilt is vacated because a urine sample was mishandled, a wrongful confinement claim will not stand "because the violation of drug testing directives does not constitute a due process violation" Ramirez v State of New York, 175 AD3d 1635, 1638 [3d Dept 2019]); see Claudio v State of New York, UID No. 2018-054-016 [Ct Cl, Rivera, J., March 22, 2018]). The mere fact that the findings of the disciplinary hearing was subsequently reversed does not give rise to a per se entitlement to recovery for wrongful confinement (see Shannon v State of New York, 111 AD3d 1077 [3d Dept 2013]).
Here, Claimant asserts that the violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive 4937 regarding calibration caused his urine sample to test positive and thus, led to his wrongful confinement. However, as discussed above, even if it were established that the Directive 4937 was not followed and the testing equipment was not properly calibrated prior to the testing of Claimant's urine sample, this does not implicate Claimant's due process rights.
As Claimant has not alleged any due process violation regarding his disciplinary hearing and subsequent confinement, the State retains its absolute immunity and the claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Defendant's remaining contentions need not be reached.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion to dismiss (M-95958) is granted and the claim is dismissed.
MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion and Affirmation of Dorothy M. Keogh, AAG, dated August 18, 2020 with attached exhibits.
January 13, 2021
Hauppauge, New York
HON. MAUREEN T. LICCIONE
Judge of the Court of Claims