Opinion
# 2017-040-069 Claim No. 121800
06-21-2017
DANIEL WAYNE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Daniel Wayne, 07-R-3193, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claim for wrongful confinement dismissed following Trial.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-040-069 |
| Claimant(s): | DANIEL WAYNE |
| Claimant short name: | WAYNE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 121800 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Daniel Wayne, 07-R-3193, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 21, 2017 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Pro se Claimant, Daniel Wayne, failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that Defendant was liable in connection with his Claim. The trial of this Claim was held by video conference on April 5, 2017, with the parties at Eastern NY Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Eastern"), and the Judge at the Court of Claims in Albany, New York.
At trial, the Court had marked as Court Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, Claimant's filed Claim and the State's Answer. Neither party submitted any exhibits into evidence and Claimant was the only person to testify at trial.
Claimant testified that, on December 16, 2011, he was confined to the Special Housing Unit (hereinafter, "SHU") at Eastern; that, on December 17, 2011, he was issued a misbehavior report for smuggling and possession of contraband, or an item that could be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument (see Court Ex. 1, ¶ 4). Claimant testified that a disciplinary hearing was commenced on December 22, 2011 and concluded on December 28, 2011. He further stated that, at the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer found him not guilty of the charges and he was released from SHU. Claimant asserts that the misbehavior report was written improperly pursuant to 7 NYCRR § 251-3.1 because he was found not guilty of the charges.
The Appellate Division, Third Department stated in Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159, 1159-1160 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]:
"[A]ctions of correctional facility employees with respect to inmate discipline matters are quasi-judicial in nature and, unless the employees exceed the scope of their authority or violate the governing statutes and regulations, [defendant] has absolute immunity for those actions" (Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 765 [2001]; see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 215-216 [1988]; Pryor v State of New York, 92 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2012]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841, 841 [2001]). Here, claimant has not articulated any facts to support his claim that the correctional facility employees responsible for his discipline acted in excess of their authority or in violation of any relevant rules or regulations.
The Court has considered the evidence, including a review of the Court exhibits, listening to Claimant's testimony and observing his demeanor as he did so. The Court finds that Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the misbehavior report he was issued was written in violation of 7 NYCRR § 251-3.1. Claimant did not submit the misbehavior report into evidence or establish how the regulation was violated. Failure to establish at the hearing that Claimant was guilty of the charges does not establish that the misbehavior report was improperly or incorrectly written.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence his Claim that he was wrongfully confined and the Claim is hereby dismissed.
All motions made at trial upon which the Court reserved decision are hereby denied.
All objections upon which the Court reserved decision at trial are hereby overruled.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
June 21, 2017
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims