Opinion
# 2014-040-048 Claim No. 123974 Motion No. M-85231
09-25-2014
ANDRE J. MELETTE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Andre J. Melette, Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Claimant's motion for summary judgment as to liability on wrongful confinement Claim denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-040-048 |
| Claimant(s): | ANDRE J. MELETTE |
| Claimant short name: | MELETTE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | Caption amended to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123974 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85231 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Andre J. Melette, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 25, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
For the reasons set forth below, Claimant's motion for partial summary judgment in his favor on the issue of liability on his first cause of action is denied.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the Clerk of the Court on February 25, 2014, alleges two separate and distinct causes of action for wrongful confinement, both of which arose at Bare Hill Correctional Facility located in Malone, New York ("Bare Hill").
The first cause of action asserts that Claimant was wrongfully confined for a period of 30 days, from October 26, 2013 to November 25, 2013. Claimant alleges that on October 26, 2013 he was placed in disciplinary confinement pending a Tier II hearing and that he received a copy of a Tier II misbehavior report on October 27, 2013, charging him with violating three specific prison rules that was signed by a Bare Hill nurse. A disciplinary hearing was commenced on October 31, 2013 and Claimant advised the hearing officer that there was a procedural error in the misbehavior report (Claim, ¶ 6). Claimant asserts that the hearing officer did not dismiss the charges, but, instead, adjourned the hearing in order to obtain testimony from the nurse (id., ¶ 7). Claimant asserts that two additional extensions were granted, adjourning the hearing to November 21, 2013 (id., ¶¶ 8-9). On November 19, 2013, Claimant sent a letter to the Bare Hill Superintendent advising him of the above facts and requesting that the charges against him be dismissed (id., ¶ 11). On November 20, 2013, Claimant received a memorandum from the Bare Hill Superintendent advising him that Claimant's correspondence had been received and had been referred to the Deputy Superintendent for Security for review and response (id., ¶12). On November 25, 2013, Claimant received a memorandum from Captain Boyd stating that the October 26, 2013 misbehavior report was reviewed and the hearing had been expunged from Claimant's record (id., ¶ 13). Claimant states that he was released from confinement on that date and was wrongfully confined for 30 days.
The second cause of action alleges that Claimant was wrongfully confined for 60 days (January 27, 2014 to March 27, 2014) following a Tier III disciplinary hearing. Claimant asserts that the hearing officer improperly took testimony from three employee witnesses and requested a time extension until the 14th day and he failed to ascertain why Claimant's inmate witness refused to testify (Claim, ¶ 23).
Claimant now moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability regarding the first cause of action only. Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be granted sparingly and only where no material issue of fact is demonstrated in the papers related to the motion (see Crowley's Milk Co. v Klein, 24 AD2d 920 [3d Dept 1965]; Wanger v Zeh, 45 Misc 2d 93, 94 [Sup Ct, Albany County 1965]), affd 26 AD2d 729 [3d Dept 1966]). "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case" (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]). "Failure to make such a prima facie showing requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324; see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra at 853).
To establish a cause of action for wrongful confinement which is a form of false imprisonment, a Claimant must establish that: (1) Defendant intended to confine him; (2) Claimant was conscious of the confinement; (3) 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 [1975]; Middleton v State of New York, 54 AD2d 450, 451 [3d Dept 1976], affd 43 NY 2d 678 [1977]). It is not disputed that Claimant was confined, was conscious of the confinement and did not consent. Thus, the issue is whether the confinement was not otherwise privileged.
In support of his motion, Claimant has submitted an affidavit that mirrors his Claim. He further asserts that, because the hearing officer failed to discharge his adjudicative responsibility to dismiss the charges against him because of a procedural error contained in the misbehavior report, he sustained injuries (Melette Affidavit, ¶ 19).
In Arteaga v State of New York (72 NY2d 212 [1988]), the Court of Appeals held that the State had absolute immunity from liability in the area of prison discipline when its employees act under the authority of and in full compliance with the statutes and regulations, and their actions constitute discretionary conduct of a quasi-judicial nature. Here, Claimant asserts that the State did not follow the rules and regulations by issuing a misbehavior report which contained a procedural error. However, Claimant has not established by means of admissible evidence that a procedural error existed. In fact, he has not stated what the procedural error "embedded" in the misbehavior report is (Melette Affidavit, ¶ 7).
Claimant relies on Howard v Coughlin, 190 AD2d 1090 (4th Dept 1993) to support his position. In Howard, the Court found that the incident date indicated in the misbehavior report was incorrect and thereby prejudiced the inmate's ability to prepare a defense. Here, however, Claimant has failed to specify the alleged error contained in the misbehavior report and, thus, his reliance upon Howard is misplaced.
As Claimant has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case, his motion for summary judgment is denied.
September 25, 2014
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on Claimant's motion for partial summary judgment
Papers Numbered
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support
& Memorandum of Law & Exhibits attached 1
Affirmation in Opposition 2
Reply Affidavit 3
Papers Filed: Claim, Answer