Opinion
# 2011-015-263 Claim No. 118240 Motion No. M-80034
09-29-2011
WILSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Pro se inmate's motion to dismiss defendant's defenses was denied. Case information
UID: 2011-015-263 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): 118240 Motion number(s): M-80034 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: Glenn King, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 29, 2011 City: Saratoga Springs Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, a pro se inmate, moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212.
Claimant was found guilty of refusing to obey a direct order following the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing and allegedly confined to his cell on keeplock status for 15 days, together with the loss of certain other privileges. The claim seeks damages for wrongful confinement and the claimant now moves for an order "pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. §3212 dismissing the [defenses/affirmative defenses]" (claimant's Notice of Motion For Summary Judgment).
As the party seeking summary judgment, claimant 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 at 853). In order to establish a prima facie case of wrongful confinement, a claimant must show "(1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the [claimant] was conscious of the confinement, (3) the [claimant] did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged . . ." (Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456 [1975], cert denied sub nom. Schanbarger v Kellog, 423 US 929 [1975]). Here, claimant addressed only the merit of some of the defendant's defenses but failed to address the merit of his own claim. As a result, to the extent claimant moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, the motion is denied as he has failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
The thrust of claimant's motion appears to seek to dismiss defendant's defenses, a motion which should have been made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b). To succeed on a motion to dismiss defenses pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b), the claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the defenses lack merit as a matter of law (Suarez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1243 [2009]; Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559 [2006]; Santilli v Allstate Ins. Co., 19 AD3d 1031 [2005]). For purposes of such a motion, all of defendant's allegations are deemed to be true and the defendant must be given " 'the benefit of every reasonable inference' " (Metz v State of New York, 86 AD3d 748, 752 [2011] [citation omitted). "If there is doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed" (Pellegrino v Millard Fillmore Hosp., 140 AD2d 954, 955 [1988] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
While claimant's notice of motion includes a list of each and every defense asserted, his affidavit in support of the motion addresses the merits of only the defendant's third, fourth, and sixth defenses.In response to the claimant's motion, defendant withdrew its third and fourth defenses leaving only the sixth defense to be addressed by the Court. That defense alleges: "Defendant through its agents and/or employees took actions which were privileged as being judicial, quasi-judicial or discretionary determinations made by such agents or employees while acting within the scope of their duties as public officials and therefore defendant is immune from any liability for such actions".
While claimant purports to address defendant's first defense in paragraph 6 (A) of his affidavit, in fact what was addressed was the first paragraph of defendant's answer which merely denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the claim. Insofar as this paragraph is not asserted as a defense, the Court will not address it.
It is well-settled that actions of correctional facility employees taken in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures are quasi-judicial in nature and entitled to absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 218-220 [1988]; Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [2009]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765, 766 [2001]; Mitchell v State of New York, 32 AD3d 594 [2006]; DuBois v State of New York, 25 Misc 3d 1137 [Ct Cl 2009]). Only where a correctional facility employee acts outside the scope of his or her authority or violates the governing statutes or regulations does the State lose its defense of absolute immunity (id.). No such facts have been established here. Claimant indicates that the determination of guilt was entered on the hearing disposition sheet on February 17, 2010, one day prior to the conclusion of the hearing, in violation of departmental rules and regulations (claimant's Exhibit A). Upon the instant record, however, there are several possible explanations for the apparent inconsistency noted by claimant, including simple human error. As a result, claimant failed to establish the defendant's sixth defense lacks merit as a matter of law.
Based on the foregoing, claimant's motion is denied.
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated June 9, 2011;
2. Affidavit of Michael L. Wilson sworn to June 9, 2011 with exhibits;
3. Affirmation of Glenn C. King dated June 13, 2011.