Opinion
# 2016-029-082 Claim No. 124559
10-17-2016
TALIYAH TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
TALIYAH TAYLOR, PRO SE ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General and Joseph E. Scolavino, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The court found defendant liable for wrongful confinement of claimant for a period of 12 days and awarded claimant $10 per day for a total of $120. Defendant was not entitled to immunity because the disciplinary hearing officer violated claimant's right to due process.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-029-082 |
| Claimant(s): | TALIYAH 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): | 124559 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | STEPHEN J. MIGNANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | TALIYAH TAYLOR, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General and Joseph E. Scolavino, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | October 17, 2016 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Taliyah Taylor, an inmate at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, alleges in her claim that agents of the facility: failed to follow proper disciplinary procedures; were negligent in maintaining operable security cameras; wrote false misbehavior reports; and wrongfully confined and slandered her. Defendant alleged in the sixth affirmative defense of its verified answer that its agents' actions were privileged and it was immune from liability. A video trial was held on August 30, 2016.
Claimant testified on her own behalf. Defendant did not present any witnesses. Claimant did not introduce any exhibits. Defendant's Exhibits A - F were admitted: (A) February 20, 2014 memorandum from Correction Officer Coreano to Sergeant E. Davis; (B) Inmate Misbehavior Report; (C) hearing transcript; (D) witness interview notice - video surveillance request; (E) written hearing disposition; and (F) appeal form.
Claimant testified as follows:
On February 20, 2014, in the facility gym, another inmate named Takia Parham ("Parham") twice attempted to hit claimant in the head with a metal folding chair. Claimant tried to block her face and the chair hit the back of her hand. Parham threw down the chair then she began hitting claimant with her fists as claimant was backing away. Two other inmates restrained Parham from continuing to attack claimant.
C.O. Coreano commanded Parham to stop and pulled his emergency pin. Claimant was handcuffed and escorted to the facility hospital (RMU), where she wrote down what happened. Claimant was then locked in her cell. On February 21, she was served with a Tier II ticket written by C.O. Coreano in which he falsely stated that he observed claimant and Parham exchanging blows and fighting. Claimant was charged with fighting, violent conduct, and creating a disturbance. That same day claimant was released and she returned to the RMU because of pain in her hand and a bruise on her hip. She filled out a second injury report.
Claimant was confined again beginning March 5, the day her disciplinary hearing began. Lieutenant Cleveland served as the hearing officer even though he had responded to the red alert. Claimant pled not guilty and called four inmates as witnesses. They all testified that she had not exchanged blows with Parham and had been moving backwards trying to get away from her. Claimant also requested the video from the gym and the video looking into the gym. Lt. Cleveland denied her request, stating that the cameras were either not working, unavailable or would not have shown anything. Lt. Cleveland also denied her request for the To/From memorandum without explanation.
During the hearing, Lt. Cleveland went off the record several times. While off the record, he screamed at her and asked if she was really going to call witnesses. He said he was going to give her time served, but if the witnesses did not back her up he would give her 30 days. On March 7, Lt. Cleveland found her guilty. He said that he did not credit the inmates' testimony.
Claimant never received a copy of the disposition. She was released on March 18 when the guilty disposition was reversed on appeal.
In the To/From memorandum (Exh. A), C.O. Coreano states that he observed Parham attempt to strike claimant with a folding metal chair, then drop the chair when other inmates took control of the chair. Claimant and Parham squared off "in a fighting stance" and struck each other with "closed fists punches" until he commanded them both to stop and walk away. Coreano repeated these statements in the misbehavior report (Exh. B), adding that there were approximately 35 inmates in the gym at the time of the incident.
The transcript of the hearing (Exh. C) is briefly summarized as follows:
Lt. Cleveland read the misbehavior report into the record. Claimant pled not guilty to the charges. Claimant testified about the incident, describing how Parham attacked her, she did not fight back and had her hands up, other inmates intervened, Parham stopped after C.O. Coreano said something, other officers rushed in, and she told them what happened. She was handcuffed and taken to RMU because she was injured. She explained to the nurses what had happened and they wrote up an injury report. She was confined and released three days later without explanation.
Claimant called C.O. Jefferson as a witness. The C.O. testified that when he responded to the gym claimant was on one side of the gym and C.O. Coreano, pointing to Parham, told Jefferson to "restrain her and bring her outside." Inmates Pamela Smart and Takia Parham testified for claimant and corroborated her testimony that she had not fought back during the altercation.
Claimant and Lt. Cleveland had an extensive exchange regarding the video cameras in the facility's gym, during which claimant requested the tapes and the Lieutenant said the functional cameras did not "show the incident." Later on he stated on the record, "we just reviewed video taping of the . . . gym at the time of the incident . . . the. . . video shows two cameras operateable [sic] both cameras contain no part of the incident . . . ahh other . . . cameras were requested and are not available" (Exh. C).
Claimant and Lt. Cleveland also had an apparently heated exchange after she asked him whether he had responded to the incident in the gym. She said he was present when she was being searched right outside the gym, which he denied. He stated that he had responded after the incident and was in the gym while she was handcuffed outside. At one point he stopped the tape for one minute. The following exchange took place when the recording continued:
"Lt. Cleveland: okay now you called for 2 witnesses
TT: yes . . .
Lt. Cleveland: are any of the witnesses present?
TT: they are . . . but I would like to preserve something on the record . . . and can you please not turn off the tape so that I can speak on the record . . . please . . .
Lt. Cleveland: if you wish to ask a question . . . of me . . . pertaining to this incident . . . then I will allow that...if you wish to just RANT on this tape then I will not allow that
TT: I want to speak according to Chapter 5 [. . .]
Lt. Cleveland: that would be Court of Appeal [. . .]
TT: part a . . .
Lt. Cleveland: okay . . . on what grounds?
TT: pertaining to the incident . . .
Lt. Cleveland: on what grounds?
TT: according to 251.1B any officers present during the incident are not allowed to the hearing . . . that's what the . . . the law states . . . you were present
Lt. Cleveland: I was not present [. . .] during the incident [. . .]
TT: okay . . . well . . . based on Chapter 5 title 7 part 2 . . . 5.1B . . . I'm requesting that cameras CS-110021 . . . be pulled it points directly into the gym . . . that may have captured parts of the incident of me being attacked [. . .]
Lt. Cleveland: DUALLY NOTED.
TT: no one else
Lt. Cleveland: DUALLY NOTED . . .
TT: to verify the incident
Lt. Cleveland: DUALLY. . . NOTED . . .
TT: you also stated . . .
Lt. Cleveland: all . . .
TT: yesterday
Lt. Cleveland: camera angles available . . . at the time that I pulled these tapes are on the tape that is preserved with this hearing
TT: CS110021 is not here . . . in addition to that . . . I'm suppose to have a partial a impartial hearing . . . and based on what you said yesterday . . . that . . . your basically not in favor of inmates testimony and since the cameras in the gym don't work but CS110021 does which points in view inside of the gym . . . I . . . need that to verify . . . my innocence
Lt. Cleveland: I never stated . . . ughhhh that
TT: you stated you weren't in favor of inmates
Lt. Cleveland: are you gonna have me ahhh are you asking me questions or are we adjourning?
TT: I'm going
Lt. Cleveland: are you asking questions?
Lt. Cleveland: yesterday
Lt. Cleveland: or are you adjourning? . . . What is this . . . ahh do you want to ask me a question?
TT: I am preserving my rights . . . based on . . . what these rules and laws tell me what my rights are . . . and if you stated that . . . yes you are in favor of . . . officers testimony your not in favor of inmates testimony
Lt. Cleveland: I never stated that . . . that was not stated
TT: when you stopped the tape you did . . . and you told me . . . that you
WERE . . . gonna give me time served and if Mr. . . . Jefferson story don't coincide with mine I was gonna get thirty days then . . . you explained the situation with the inmates unfortunately because
Lt. Cleveland: are you refusing the rest of these witnesses?
TT: NO I'm not . . .
Lt. Cleveland: then we are gonna get on with the witnesses I'm DONE . . . hearing . . . your . . ."
Claimant asked several more questions and then requested "the TO/FROM's written that night," which Lt. Cleveland denied without explanation. After that the testimony continued. Inmates Nicole "BZDUE" and Malika Baker testified that they were present during the incident, Parham attacked claimant, and that claimant put her hands up to protect herself and backed away without throwing a punch. After a delay, Lt. Cleveland read his disposition into the record. He found claimant guilty on all three charges, stated that the evidence he relied on was the written report by C.O. Coreano and that "no evidence preden pre..sented at this hearing established that the written report of officer Coreano should be discounted." The penalty imposed was "20 days keeplock, loss of rec, packages, commissary and phones...from today's date 3/7/14 with the release date of 3/27/14" (Exh. C). After that claimant signed the disposition sheet and the hearing concluded.
The document titled "Witness Interview Notice" (Exh. D) is dated March 7, 2014 and signed by Lt. Cleveland. It reflects his statement, "Video requested 110021, 110023 NOT available for this date and time 2/20/14 7:50 pm to 8:20 pm." The document titled "Appeal Form to the Superintendent" (Exh. F) includes claimant's appeal and the Superintendent's March 18, 2014 reply reversing the disposition and sustaining claimant's first of five grounds for appeal, "failure to produce documentary evidence upon request." The only reason provided was "H/O denied supporting documents w/o reason."
To establish that she was wrongfully confined, claimant must prove that "(1) the defendant intended to confine [her], (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]).
There is no dispute regarding the first three grounds, and claimant has proved the fourth by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence shows that the hearing officer violated claimant's right to due process. The law governing State liability for wrongful or excessive confinement of an inmate pursuant to a disciplinary charge was set forth in Arteaga v State of New York (72 NY2d 212, 219 [1988]):
"[A]ctions of Correction Department employees in preparing and filing misbehavior reports, confining inmates, and making dispositions following Superintendents' hearings entail discretionary decisions in furtherance of general policies and purposes where the exercise of reasoned judgment can produce different acceptable results . . . We conclude, then, that actions of correction employees, in circumstances such as those here, are quasi-judicial in nature and deserving of absolute immunity."
Although the court characterized the immunity applicable to disciplinary confinements as "absolute," it noted that such was the case only where the confinement is fully in conformity with all appropriate directives and statutes. In Arteaga, the court noted "actions of correction personnel in . . . confining [inmates] without granting a hearing or other required due process safeguard (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1; parts 252-254) would not receive immunity" (id. at 221) - thus carving out a limited exception in cases where an inmate's confinement arose from a proceeding where his rights were not observed (see Boatwright v State of New York, UID No. 2013-041-017 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Apr. 18, 2013] [to abrogate State's absolute immunity under Arteaga, "[t]he rule or regulation [at issue] must implicate minimal due process protections"]).
In the context of confinement pursuant to a prison disciplinary proceeding, such confinement is "privileged to the extent that it was under color of law or regulation, specifically in accordance with [inmate misbehavior] regulations" (Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 402 [Ct Cl 1986]). If, however, prison officials fail to comply with one of the rules or regulations governing such disciplinary hearings, absolute immunity is lost and liability may be imposed if it is proven that the regulatory violation caused actual injury to the inmate (see Rivera v State of New York, UID No. 2006-028-008 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Feb. 8, 2006], citing Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 825 [3d Dept 2004]; Henderson v Coughlin, 163 Misc 2d 20 [Ct Cl 1994]).
This court does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the disposition, which has already been reversed by the Superintendent. Rather, the inquiry is whether claimant established that defendant violated its own policies or regulations, and whether the violations impacted her due process rights. If successful, then defendant cannot rely on its defense of immunity.
Claimant testified credibly that: she was attacked by the other inmate, backed up and tried to protect herself by holding up her hands, and did not hit back; the incident was witnessed by 35 other inmates; she was injured by the other inmate's attack; and she called four inmate witnesses who corroborated her testimony. Claimant also testified credibly to the actions and statements of the hearing officer, Lt. Cleveland, establishing that: he disregarded the inmate witnesses' testimony before they testified; he decided claimant was guilty before hearing any testimony; he threatened to increase claimant's penalty if the testimony of her witness, C.O. Jefferson, did not coincide with hers, then he followed through on his threat; he denied, without explanation, claimant's request for videotape that could have shown what happened, and for the To/From memorandum about the incident; and he served as the hearing officer even though he had responded to the incident. Defendant did not rebut claimant's testimony with any witnesses, and her exhibits supported this conclusion.
7 NYCRR § 253.1(b) of the procedures for implementing standards of inmate behavior provides, in relevant part, "The disciplinary hearing officer shall be responsible for conducting disciplinary hearings in an impartial manner." Lt. Cleveland was not impartial. He prejudged claimant's guilt and disregarded her witnesses' testimony solely because of their status as inmates, relying solely on the report by C.O. Coreano (see Matter of Rambert v Fischer, 128 AD3d 1111 [3d Dept 2015] [annulling disposition where hearing officer shifted burden of proof to inmate]). Section 253.1(b) also provides that, "No person who has participated in any investigation of the acts shall be a hearing officer at a hearing relating to those acts." Lt. Cleveland responded to the incident while claimant was handcuffed and being searched, and the witnesses remained at the scene. Claimant's objection to his serving as the hearing officer on this basis was brushed aside.
7 NYCRR § 253.5(a) provides, in relevant part, "The inmate may call witnesses on his behalf provided their testimony is material, is not redundant, and doing so does not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals." Lt. Cleveland did not deny claimant's request to call witnesses, but evidently to pressure claimant into foregoing her request, he threatened her with an increased penalty if her officer witness did not corroborate her version of the incident. The testimony of C.O. Jefferson proved to be material. He testified to being instructed to restrain the other inmate, whom claimant testified was the aggressor.
He did not testify to observing the incident itself, which could explain the penalty ultimately imposed. --------
Lt. Cleveland also denied claimant videotape that she credibly established could have shown the incident, stating only that it was not available, and he denied her request for documents without explanation. The Superintendent reversed the disposition solely on the basis of the unexplained documents denial without reaching the other points raised by claimant in her appeal. Claimant has met her burden to establish that defendant violated several of its own policies, and that in doing so defendant violated claimant's right to a fair and impartial hearing. Defendant's actions in confining claimant from March 7, 2014 through March 18, 2014, after the disposition until her release, are not privileged. Defendant is liable to claimant for wrongful confinement for a period of twelve days and shall pay $10 per day for a total of $120.
As to the claim for defamation, "In New York, statements made by Hearing Officers, parties, attorneys and witnesses in the course of a quasi-judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent to the issues to be resolved in the proceeding" (Vogel v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 186 [Ct Cl 2000][citations omitted]; see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 219 [1988]). The statements made by C.O. Coreano in the Misbehavior Report made in the course of a quasi-judicial proceeding (see id.) are privileged and defendant is not liable for defamation.
As for the claim for negligence, other than Lt. Cleveland's vague assertion that the video cameras claimant requested were not functioning or were unavailable, she did not present any evidence as to the condition and maintenance of the video cameras. Defendant is not liable for negligence.
Accordingly, the court finds that claimant is entitled to judgment in the sum of $120.00. To the extent that claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2). The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
October 17, 2016
White Plains, New York
STEPHEN J. MIGNANO
Judge of the Court of Claims