Opinion
# 2013-010-071 Claim No. 120351
12-05-2013
ERNEST TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Claimant's attorney: ERNEST TAYLOR Pro Se Defendant's attorney: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Inmate excessive confinement
Case information
UID: 2013-010-071 Claimant(s): ERNEST TAYLOR Claimant short name: TAYLOR Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 120351 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: Terry Jane Ruderman ERNEST TAYLOR Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General for the State of New York By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 5, 2013 City: White Plains Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant seeks damages for 23 days of wrongful excessive confinement in his cell at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Sing Sing) from April 13, 2011 through May 5, 2011. Claimant maintains that Sing Sing violated its own rules by not holding his disciplinary hearing within seven days of filing a misbehavior report and then not completing the hearing within 14 days of its commencement.
The evidence established that claimant was issued a misbehavior report and was placed in keeplock on April 13, 2011 pending a hearing (Ex. A). Contrary to claimant's allegation, the hearing was properly commenced within 7 days of his confinement (7 NYCRR § 251-5.1). Claimant also alleges that his hearing was not properly completed within 14 days following the writing of the misbehavior report as mandated by 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(b). Claimant, however, fails to note the full text of 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(b) which provides for authorized adjournments of the hearing. Indeed, 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(b) provides:
"[t]he disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing must be completed within 14 days following the writing of the misbehavior report unless otherwise authorized by the commissioner or his designee [emphasis added]. Where a delay is authorized, the record of the hearing should reflect the reasons for any delay or adjournment, and an inmate should ordinarily be made aware of these reasons unless to do so would jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals."In this matter, the evidence established that authorized adjournments were obtained and that claimant was made aware of these adjournments as noted in the hearing transcript (Ex. A, p 5; Ex. B, pp 2-3, 10-13). Claimant was released from keeplock on May 5, 2011 and his record was subsequently expunged.
Upon review of all the evidence, the Court finds that claimant has failed to establish that he was excessively confined to keeplock or that defendant violated 7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(b) (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 219-220 [1988]; Matter of Blocker v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1118 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Hairston v Goord, 299 AD2d 359 [2d Dept 2002]).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is hereby GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 120351.
December 5, 2013
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims