Summary
In Loret, the Plaintiff sued the State of New York for damages after the Third Department overturned his disciplinary conviction in an Article 78 Proceeding.
Summary of this case from Smith v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs.Opinion
2013-05-2
David LORET, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
David Loret, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers of counsel), for respondent.
David Loret, Comstock, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, SPAIN and GARRY, JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered May 9, 2012, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant, a prison inmate, served a 30–day period of punitive confinement after he was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Claimant commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt and this Court annulled such determination, finding that it was not supported by substantial evidence ( Matter of Loret v. Bezio, 79 A.D.3d 1561, 1562, 915 N.Y.S.2d 656 [2010] ). Claimant subsequently commenced this action, seeking damages for wrongful confinement. After claimant filed a motion seeking certain relief, defendant cross-moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that defendant was entitled to absolute immunity for the actions of the correctional facility employees with respect to the disciplinary proceedings brought against claimant. The Court of Claims agreed and dismissed the claim, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. “[A]ctions of correctional facility employees with respect to inmate discipline matters are quasi-judicial in nature and, unless the employees exceed the scope of their authority or violate the governing statutes and regulations, [defendant] has absolute immunity for those actions” ( Holloway v. State of New York, 285 A.D.2d 765, 765, 728 N.Y.S.2d 567 [2001];see Arteaga v. State of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 212, 215–216, 532 N.Y.S.2d 57, 527 N.E.2d 1194 [1988];Pryor v. State of New York, 92 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 937 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2012];Varela v. State of New York, 283 A.D.2d 841, 841, 724 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2001] ). Here, claimant has not articulated any facts to support his claim that the correctional facility employees responsible for his discipline acted in excess of their authority or in violation of any relevant rules or regulations. Indeed, this Court's annulment of the determination of claimant's guilt was based upon a finding that it was not supported by substantialevidence, not upon any finding that the correctional facility employees acted in excess of their authority or departed from any applicable statutory or regulatory direction ( Matter of Loret v. Bezio, supra ). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly determined that defendant was entitled to absolute immunity and dismissed the claim ( see Davidson v. State of New York, 66 A.D.3d 1089, 1089, 887 N.Y.S.2d 277 [2009] ).
Claimant's remaining contention has been considered and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.