Opinion
# 2017-015-227 Claim No. 127538 Motion No. M-89924
04-19-2017
WAYNE TRULIO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Wayne Trulio, Pro Se No Appearance Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Christina Calabrese, Esquire Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action was denied. Claim stated a cause of action for wrongful confinement in the prison setting and also met the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2017-015-227 |
| Claimant(s): | WAYNE TRULIO |
| Claimant short name: | TRULIO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127538 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89924 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Wayne Trulio, Pro Se No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Christina Calabrese, Esquire Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 19, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) on the ground it fails to state a cause of action or meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Claimant, a pro se inmate, alleges he was wrongfully confined to his cell at Great Meadow Correctional Facility from February 4, 2016 through February 10, 2016. Claimant alleges that he "was not under any form of disciplinary report; and had committed no manner of infraction of the rules and regulations" (defendant's Exhibit A, ¶ 1). Claimant alleges further that he was "conscious of the confinement, and the confinement was not in any manner justified" (id.).
In support of that branch of its motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action, defendant contends that the claimant "does not give a reason for the confinement nor does he provide a . . . rule or regulation that was violated due to his 'wrongful' confinement" (affirmation of Christina Calabrese, ¶ 11). With respect to its contention that the claim fails to meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), defense counsel states "the Claim lacks a clear statement as to the alleged incident, what rules were violated or the damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (affirmation of Christina Calabrese, ¶ 14).
In addressing a motion to dismiss a claim on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211 (a) (7), the Court must construe the claim liberally, assume that the allegations in the claim are true, and afford the claimant "the benefit of every possible favorable inference" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see also Goshen v Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326 [2002]; Trump on the Ocean, LLC v State of New York, 79 AD3d 1325, 1326 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 770 [2011]). "[T]he criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one" (Davis v South Nassau Communities Hosp., 26 NY3d 563 [2015] [inner quotation marks and citation omitted]).
In order to establish a claim of wrongful confinement, the 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 [1975]). Construing the claim liberally and assuming the truth of the allegations stated therein, claimant states a cause of action for wrongful confinement.
The law is settled that conduct of correction employees taken in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures is quasi-judicial in nature and entitled to absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Kairis v State of New York, 113 AD3d 942 [3d Dept 2014]; Loret v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1159 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 852 [2013]; Mitchell v State of New York, 32 AD3d 594 [3d Dept 2006]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [2001]). Only when the actions of correction personnel violate a due process safeguard is the protective cloak of immunity lost (Arteaga, 72 NY2d at 221). Required due process safeguards include a hearing with advance written notice of the charges, the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when permitting the inmate to do so will not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals, and the right to a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken (Wolff, 418 US 563-570; Matter of Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 146 [1990]). The regulations implementing these due process protections therefore require, among other things, the issuance of a misbehavior report and a hearing before punitive confinement may be imposed (see 7 NYCRR 254.3; parts 252-254 ). Here, claimant alleges that he "was not under any form of disciplinary report; and had committed no manner of infraction of the rules and regulations" at the time of his keeplock confinement (defendant's Exhibit A, ¶ 1). Assuming the truth of claimant's allegations, he clearly states a cause of action for wrongful confinement. While correction personnel are authorized to confine an inmate to his cell, room or housing area where the inmate is reasonably perceived to pose a threat to the safety and security of the facility (see 7 NYCRR 251-1.6 [a]; Pettus v West, 28 AD3d 907 [3d Dept 2006]; Davis v State of New York, 262 AD2d 887 [3d Dept 1999]), defendant does not contend that the claimant was confined pursuant to this regulation or that the claimant did, in fact, pose a threat to the safety and security of the facility (cf. Lee v State of New York, 124 AD2d 305 [3d Dept 1986]). As indicated by the Arteaga Court, the "actions of correction personnel . . . in confining [inmates] without granting a hearing or other required due process safeguard . . . would not receive immunity" (72 NY2d at 221). Thus, claimant's allegation that he was locked in his cell from February 4, 2016 through February 10, 2016 without having been served with a misbehavior report or given the benefit of a hearing states a cause of action for wrongful confinement.
Turning to defendant's contention that the claim fails to meet the pleading requirements of the Court of Claims Act, § 11(b) requires that a claim state "the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and . . . the total sum claimed" (see Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 [2003]). "Failure to abide by these pleading requirements constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the claim, even though this may be a harsh result" (Sommer v State of New York, 131 AD3d 757, 758 [3d Dept 2015], quoting Morra v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1115, 1116 [3d Dept 2013]; see also Dinerman v NYS Lottery, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010], lv dismissed 15 NY3d 911 [2010]; Nasir v State of New York, 41 AD3d 677 [2d Dept 2007]; Mujica v State of New York, 24 AD3d 898 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 701 [3d Dept 2006]). While defendant contends that "the Claim lacks a clear statement as to the alleged incident, what rules were violated or the damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (affirmation of Christina Calabrese, ¶ 14), the claim sufficiently alleges all of the particulars § 11 (b) requires. The gist of the claim is that the claimant was confined to his cell at Great Meadow Correctional Facility from February 4, 2016 through February 10, 2016 without explanation and without being served a misbehavior report, and that claimant suffered "ridicule, embarrassment, derision, scorn and disrespectful comments" as the result of the unjustified confinement. While not required, claimant also alleges a total sum claimed in damages in the amount of $1,500.00. These allegations sufficiently state the time when and the place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained. Accordingly, the claim both states a cause of action for wrongful confinement and meets the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion is denied.
April 19, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims The Court considered the following papers:
1. Notice of motion dated February 14, 2017;
2. Affirmation of Christina Calabrese dated February 14, 2017 with exhibits.