Opinion
# 2011-030-588 Claim No. 118974 Motion No. M-79727 Cross-Motion No. CM-80048
08-16-2011
WEBSTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Motion for summary judgement by inmate claimant granted. Damages awarded for the 90-day period he was wrongfully confined without privilege. Case information
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦UID: ¦2011-030-588 ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant(s): ¦ROBERT WEBSTER ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant short name: ¦WEBSTER ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (claimant name) : ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Defendant(s): ¦THE STATE OF NEW YORK ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Footnote (defendant name) : ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party claimant(s): ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant(s): ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Claim number(s): ¦118974 ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Motion number(s): ¦M-79727 ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Cross-motion number(s): ¦CM-80048 ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Judge: ¦THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Claimant's attorney: ¦ROBERT WEBSTER, PRO SE ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK¦ ¦Defendant's attorney: ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦BY: BARRY KAUFMAN, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Third-party defendant's attorney:¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Signature date: ¦August 16, 2011 ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦City: ¦White Plains ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Comments: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Official citation: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦Appellate results: ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------¦ ¦See also (multicaptioned case) ¦ ¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Decision
The following papers were read and considered on claimant's motion for summary judgment and on defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the claim:
1, 2 Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Claimant and attached exhibits
3 Notice of Cross-Motion, Affirmation in Opposition by Barry Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General and attached exhibits
4 Reply to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Claimant
5, 6 Filed papers: Claim, Answer
Robert Webster alleges in his claim that he was wrongfully confined while an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility from on or about May 4, 2009 to August 2, 2009. More specifically, he alleges that a Superintendent's hearing was not timely commenced, nor was a reversal of the decision on appeal timely and accurately disseminated, among other things, all resulting in loss of a family reunion visit, loss of other privileges, and excessive confinement.
The Superintendent's hearing of June 3, 2009 was reversed on appeal on August 13, 2009, based upon the untimely commencement of the hearing. [See Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Exhibit G]. Mr. Webster was released from the special housing unit [SHU] on July 31, 2009, and indicates he was kept on keeplock confinement until August 2, 2009. [Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, ¶¶ 7 and 8].
Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §3212 (a). Each party has submitted documentary records in support of their respective motions, including the initial misbehavior report charging claimant with possession of a weapon, found after a cell search was conducted, resulting in his immediate confinement on May 4, 2009. [Affirmation in Opposition by Barry Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit C]. The hearing record sheet submitted and related documents show that the Tier III hearing was first to have commenced on May 11, 2009 but it appears that the hearing officer was unavailable then. [Affirmation in Opposition by Barry Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, Exhibit E; Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, ¶ 6, Exhibit B; Reply to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Exhibit A]. It was thereafter adjourned to May 18, 2009, and was concluded on June 3, 2009. [Ibid.].
On June 3, 2009, Mr. Webster was found guilty of the facility weapons possession violation charged, and sentenced to 90 days SHU retroactive to May 4, 2009, to end on August 2, 2009, with loss of packages, commissary, and phone privileges to August 9, 2009. [Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Exhibit B].
To establish a prima facie case of wrongful confinement, a "species" of the tort of false imprisonment [Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 407 (Ct Cl 1986)], an inmate claimant must show that the defendant confined him, that the inmate was conscious of the confinement and did not consent to it, and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 (1975). When defendants follow their own regulations, which are intended to safeguard the inmate's constitutional rights, and exercise quasi-judicial discretion, there can be no liability for a claimant's confinement to keeplock and special housing as the result of a reversed conviction. Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 214 (1988).
If officers act inconsistently with their own rules and regulations, or otherwise act outside the sphere of privileged actions, however, liability may attach. The fact that charges are ultimately dismissed does not alone give rise to a cognizable cause of action when there is no evidence defendant acted inconsistently with its own rules and regulations. Arteaga v State of New York, supra. Pre-hearing confinement may be authorized, as may extensions of the time within which a hearing is finally concluded.
Significantly, in this case the basis for administrative reversal was that the hearing was not commenced in a timely manner. [See Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Robert Webster, Claimant, Exhibit G]. Such determination recognizes that the substantive due process right Mr. Webster possessed to have his hearing conducted within seven days of his initial disciplinary confinement [see 7 NYCRR §251-5.1(a)], and to thereafter have only appropriately authorized extensions until completion of the hearing, was violated. There is no indication that defendant sought further review or adjustment of such determination made by its own administrative arm. Defendant is, accordingly, prevented from challenging this determination and its directed expungement of the records. See e.g. DuBois v State of New York, 25 Misc 3d 1137 (Ct Cl 2009).
No judicial review was sought in any case, wherein the considerations of substantial evidence and the adequacy of other due process considerations, such as allowing witnesses to testify before the inmate rather than outside of his presence - an argument point raised by claimant on his Superintendent's appeal - might have been explored.
In this regard, the caution raised by defendant that the time limits set forth in the regulations are "directory, not mandatory" and that an inmate claimant must show prejudice by the delay, is an issue more relevant to judicial review in a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [see Matter of Bilbrew v Goord, 33 AD3d 1107 (3d Dept 2006); Matter of Chaney v Goord, 26 AD3d 605 (3d Dept 2006)]. Starting from the standpoint that the immunity protections afforded by Arteaga v State of New York, supra, and its progeny do not apply given the failure to follow its regulations and timely commence and conclude a hearing [see e.g. Gaiter v State of New York, UID # 2009-029-060, Claim No. 113429 (Mignano, J., October 5, 2009); cf: Page v State of New York, UID # 2010-029-052, Claim No. 115077 (Mignano, J., October 15, 2010)], the view that "prejudice" must be shown [see e.g. Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 (3d Dept 2009)], seems inapplicable, even as a practical matter, given the expungement of all records by the very administrative reversal. This is in the same category as requiring an inmate to establish that prohibited witnesses, for example, would have made a difference in the initial finding of guilt (again, with an expunged record).
Since the confinement at issue here was void at its onset, claimant has established that his intentional confinement was not otherwise privileged within the Broughton v State of New York,supra, formula.
Based on the foregoing, claimant's motion for summary judgment is granted and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. Claimant has satisfactorily established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law [see e.g. Lamage v State of New York, 31 Misc 3d 1205(A) (Ct Cl 2010)], and defendant has not sustained its burden of showing that there are triable issues of fact preventing summary determination. Claimant is awarded damages for the 90-day period he was wrongfully confined from May 4, 2009, in the total amount of $900.00.
It is further ordered that, to the extent that claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act §11-a(2).
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
August 16, 2011
White Plains, New York
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims