Opinion
# 2012-015-328 Claim No. 118226 Motion No. M-81130
05-17-2012
WILSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Inmate's motion to reargue his prior motion seeking dismissal of defendant's immunity defenses was denied. The failure to record a disciplinary hearing violates no constitutionally required due process safeguard and provides no basis for dismissing defendant's immunity defenses where the claimant was provided with a statement of the evidence relied upon by the hearing officer and DOCCS employees acted properly in confining the inmate. Case information
UID: 2012-015-328 Claimant(s): MICHAEL L. WILSON Claimant short name: WILSON Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118226 Motion number(s): M-81130 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS Claimant's attorney: Michael L. Wilson, Pro Se Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Joan Matalavage, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: May 17, 2012 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 for reargument of that branch of this Court's Decision and Order dated November 22, 2011 which denied his motion to dismiss defendant's immunity defenses.
The claim sets forth a cause of action for wrongful confinement arising from a disciplinary sanction imposed following a Tier II disciplinary hearing. The basis for the claim is the contention that the Hearing Officer's determination of guilt, while initially affirmed on appeal, was later reversed due to the failure of prison staff to electronically record the hearing as required by 7 NYCRR 253.6 (b). In its prior Decision and Order, the Court denied claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's immunity defenses; the second, fourth and fifth defenses asserted in the answer.
A motion to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court and requires the moving party to demonstrate that the Court overlooked or misapprehended matters of fact or misapplied existing law to the facts presented (see CPLR Rule 2221 [d] [2]; Peak v Northway Travel Trailers, 260 AD2d 840 [1999]; Spa Realty Assoc. v Springs Assoc., 213 AD2d 781 [1995]). Such a motion does not serve as a vehicle to permit the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1979], lv denied 56 NY2d 507 [1982]).
Claimant contends that in denying his prior motion the Court overlooked the fact that the requirement to electronically record the hearing is mandatory, not discretionary, thereby exposing the State to liability for its failure to abide by the regulatory mandate. The Court disagrees.
In concluding that the failure to electronically record a disciplinary hearing, standing alone, provides no basis for a wrongful confinement claim, the Court acknowledged that "actions of correction personnel in . . . confining [inmates] without granting a hearing or other required due process safeguard" are not afforded absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 221 [1988]). However, inmates are not entitled to the full panoply of procedural due process safeguards afforded a defendant in a criminal prosecution (Wolff v McDonnell, 418 US 539, 556 [1974]). Accordingly, the Court noted in its prior decision those cases holding that the failure to electronically record a prison disciplinary hearing violates neither Federal nor State constitutional due process requirements (Ramsey v Goord, 661 F Supp 2d 370, 393 [2009]; Matter of Carter v Goord, 271 AD2d 729, 730 [2000]). So long as inmates are provided with a statement of the evidence relied upon by the hearing officer in rendering his or her determination and the reasons for the action taken, they are afforded the information necessary to challenge the determination (Matter of Holmes v Fischer, 66 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2009]). As a result, a violation of the regulatory requirement for an electronically recorded hearing, standing alone, provides no basis to dismiss the State's defenses that it is immune from liability for the discretionary, quasi-judicial determination of the hearing officer.
This conclusion is further supported by claimant's admission that "the officers and employee responsible for filing the misbehavior report against Claimant, conducting the hearing, and confining him before the hearing determination acted entirely within their authority and in compliance with the applicable rules and regulations" (affidavit of Michael L. Wilson dated February 9, 2012, ¶ 9 [E]). Under these circumstances, no prejudice resulted from the alleged failure to electronically record the hearing (see Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 825 [2004]). Inasmuch as the alleged failure to record the disciplinary hearing is insufficient, without more, to overcome defendant's immunity defenses, the claimant's motion to dismiss these defenses was properly denied. Accordingly, claimant's motion to reargue is denied.
May 17, 2012
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated February 9, 2012;
2. Affidavit of Michael L. Wilson sworn to February 9, 2012;
3. Affidavit of Joan Matalavage sworn to February 24, 2012.