Opinion
# 2012-041-058 Claim No. 118039 Motion No. M-81447
07-26-2012
MICHAEL SMITH 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: 2012-041-058 Claimant(s): MICHAEL SMITH Claimant short name: SMITH Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118039 Motion number(s): M-81447 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: FRANK P. MILANO Claimant's attorney: NONE 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: July 26, 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 has not opposed the motion.
The claim alleges that defendant administratively, and unlawfully, added a five-year period of postrelease supervision to the criminal determinate sentence imposed upon claimant by the sentencing court, resulting in claimant being imprisoned for violating the terms of the administratively imposed postrelease supervision. The claim sounds in wrongful confinement.
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.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The claim is dismissed.
July 26, 2012
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed April 19, 2012;
2. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated April 19, 2012, and annexed exhibit.