Opinion
# 2012-041-023 Claim No. 117558 Motion No. M-80706
03-20-2012
CORREA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claim alleging that defendant unlawfully confined claimant by adding term of post-release supervision to claimant's criminal sentence is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Case information
UID: 2012-041-023 Claimant(s): NELSON CORREA Claimant short name: CORREA Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 117558 Motion number(s): M-80706 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO Claimant's attorney: JEFFREY W. RIZZO, ESQ. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: March 20, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action. Claimant opposes the motion.
The claim alleges that defendant administratively, and unlawfully, added a five-year period of postrelease supervision to claimant's criminal five-year determinate sentence, resulting in claimant being imprisoned for violating the terms of the administratively imposed postrelease supervision. The claim sounds in wrongful confinement and negligence.
To establish that he was wrongfully confined, claimant must prove that "(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 Kellogg, 423 US 929; Krzyzak v Schaefer, 52 AD3d 979 [3d Dept 2008]).
In Ortiz v State of New York (78 AD3d 1314, 1315 [3d Dept 2010], affd Donald v State of New York, 17 NY3d 389 [2011]), the court held, under similar circumstances, that "DOCS's actions in administratively imposing postrelease supervision in the first place and also in confining individuals for a violation of administratively imposed postrelease supervision are privileged."
Because the alleged confinement was privileged, the claim fails to state a cause of action for wrongful confinement.
Claimant also fails to state a cause based upon defendant's purported negligence in imposing postrelease supervision. In Donald, again under similar circumstances, the Court of Appeals rejected a cause of action against defendant based in negligence:
"[N]egligence claims are barred for another reason: the State is immune from liability for the discretionary acts of its officials (Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40 [1983] ['when official action involves the exercise of discretion, the officer is not liable for the injurious consequences of that action even if resulting from negligence or malice']; Lauer v City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 99 [2000] ['A public employee's discretionary acts . . . may not result in the municipality's liability even when the conduct is negligent']; McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 203 [2009] ['Government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability']).
Where the issue is governmental immunity, an action is considered 'discretionary' if it involves 'the exercise of reasoned judgment' (Lauer, 95 NY2d at 99). DOCS's actions in recording PRS terms as part of claimants' sentences were discretionary in that sense. In each of these cases, DOCS was presented with a prisoner sentenced to a determinate prison term, for whom PRS was mandatory under state law. DOCS made the 'reasoned judgment' that it should interpret their sentences as including PRS, though the sentences rendered by the courts did not mention it. We held in Garner that that judgment was mistaken, but it clearly was just that--a mistake in judgment--not a ministerial error, like mistranscribing an entry or confusing the files of two different prisoners.
Making judgments as to the scope of its own authority in interpreting the directions it has received from the court system is a normal and legitimate part of DOCS's function" (Donald, 17 NY3d at 395-396).
The claim fails to state a negligence-based cause of action.
Claimant argues, inaccurately, in opposition to the defendant's motion that under Penal Law Section 70.45 (2) (f), the sentencing judge could have imposed a PRS term of between two and one-half and five years and that the defendant "unlawfully and unilaterally imposed the maximum period of PRS with no authority to do so." Penal Law Section 70.45 (2) (f) did not exist at the time claimant was originally sentenced in 2002.
Defendant correctly points out that under then existing Penal Law § 70.45 (2), a five-year postrelease supervision term was statutorily established unless the sentencing judge expressly set a shorter period. In the instant case, claimant's sentence was silent as to any imposed term of postrelease supervision. Consequently defendant argues, pursuant to the Donald decision, defendant made the "discretionary determination to calculate Claimant's sentence to include the mandatory period of PRS prescribed by State Law."
As to claimant's assertion that the sentencing court had the discretion to impose a postrelease supervision term of less than five years, the decision of this Court in Donald v State of New York (24 Misc 3d 329 [Ct Cl Feb 05, 2009]), considered a situation in which the defendant administratively imposed a three-year period of postrelease supervision upon the claimant when, under the prevailing statute, a 1½ to 3 year period of postrelease supervision could have been imposed by the sentencing judge. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the Fourth Department Appellate Division's reversal of this Court's decision in Donald, found no legal infirmity in the defendant's imposition of the three-year period of postrelease supervision under such circumstances (Donald v State of New York,17 NY3d 389 [2011]).
The defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The claim is dismissed.
March 20, 2012
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, dated December 5, 2011;
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated December 5, 2011, and annexed exhibit;
3. Undated Affirmation of Jeffrey W. Rizzo;
4. Reply Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated January 23, 2012, and annexed exhibit.