Opinion
# 2020-045-017 Claim No. 132916 Motion No. M-94766
05-05-2020
CARL WELLS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Carl Wells, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Pro se claimant's motion for summary judgment after disciplinary hearing and bailment, failed to exhaust remedies.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-045-017 |
| Claimant(s): | CARL WELLS |
| Claimant short name: | WELLS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court has amended the caption, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 132916 |
| Motion number(s): | M-94766 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA |
| Claimant's attorney: | Carl Wells, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, Attorney General By: Heather R. Rubinstein, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 5, 2020 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment; Claimant's Affidavit in Support with annexed Exhibits; Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition with annexed Exhibits A-C; and the filed Claim.
Claimant, Carl Wells, has brought this motion seeking an order pursuant to CPLR 3212 granting summary judgment in his favor. Defendant, the State of New York, opposes the motion.
The underlying action occurred on March 29, 2018 at approximately 8:00 a.m. in 3-C Block at Downstate Correctional Facility. At that time, claimant was involved in an assault wherein he was hit from behind by another inmate but did not retaliate against his assailant. Claimant alleges that his attacker was returned to his cell after the assault. Claimant was also taken to his cell but was then taken to the infirmary and thereafter put into keeplock for five days. Claimant alleges that he was wrongfully confined because the correction officers falsely reported the incident in his misbehavior report. At the subsequent disciplinary hearing, claimant was found not guilty of the charges brought against him. Claimant also alleges that correction officers destroyed his legal papers which were located in his draft bag while they packed up his belongings.
The party seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group, 88 NY2d 904 [1996]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once the proponent of a summary judgment motion establishes a prima facie showing then the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In determining a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Gradwohl v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2010]).
A cause of action for wrongful confinement requires a claimant to show that defendant intended to confine him, that claimant was conscious of the confinement, that claimant did not consent to the confinement and lastly that the confinement was not otherwise privileged (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975]).
The Court of Appeals has held that the actions of Correction Officers in commencing and conducting disciplinary proceedings, that are "under the authority of and in full compliance with the governing statutes and regulations (Correction Law §§ 112, 137; 7 NYCRR parts 250-254)
. . . 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]). The Court explains that this immunity can be lost "for [the] unlawful actions of employees taken beyond their authority or in violation of the governing rules and regulations" (Arteaga, supra at 220).
The administrative reversal of disciplinary findings alone, without proof of a violation of nondiscretionary rules and regulations, does not establish a wrongful confinement cause of action (see Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159, 1159-1160 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]). Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the correction officers either exceeded the scope of their authority or violated any of the pertinent governing regulations in issuing the misbehavior report.
Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9), a claim by an inmate for recovery of damages for destruction to or loss of personal property may not be filed unless and until the inmate has exhausted the personal property claims administrative remedy, established for inmates by the correctional department. Such claim must be filed and served within one hundred twenty days after the date on which the inmate has exhausted such remedy.
Failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction (Williams v State of New York, 38 AD3d 646 [2d Dept 2007]). The Court finds that claimant, by not first filing an institutional personal property claim prior to filing the instant claim, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by statute.
Claimant has failed to establish, through competent admissible evidence, his prima facie burden of demonstrating his entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant's motion is denied.
May 5, 2020
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims