Opinion
# 2017-054-001 Claim No. 124487
08-24-2017
KEITH WATERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
KEITH WATERS Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Misbehavior report held to be sufficiently specific in wrongful confinement claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2017-054-001 |
| Claimant(s): | KEITH WATERS |
| Claimant short name: | WATERS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124487 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | WALTER RIVERA |
| Claimant's attorney: | KEITH WATERS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | August 24, 2017 |
| City: | White Plains |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
By Decision and Order file-stamped May 19, 2014, claimant was granted leave to serve and file a late claim alleging that, during his incarceration at Greene Correctional Facility located in Coxsackie, New York, claimant was wrongfully confined based upon a misbehavior report which failed to include the date and time when claimant allegedly violated the charged prison rules (Waters v State of New York, UID No. 2014-040-022 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., May 1, 2014]).
A trial of the matter was heard wherein claimant offered his testimony and submitted documentary evidence (Ex. 1). The following facts were established at trial. On January 19, 2013, claimant was served with a misbehavior report charging him with violating Rule 106.10, failing to follow a direct order, and Rule 180.17, which prohibits an inmate from receiving compensation for providing legal services (id. at #31, #32). On January 22, 2013, a Tier III hearing was commenced. Claimant's objection was noted that the misbehavior report failed to set forth the date and time when claimant had allegedly received compensation for providing legal services (id. at #21). The Hearing Officer found that claimant was not guilty of violating Rule 106.10 and was guilty of violating Rule 180.17 (id. at #28). Claimant was sentenced to 90 days in the special housing unit. On May 31, 2013, claimant was released from the special housing unit. On October 2, 2013, pursuant to an Article 78 proceeding commenced by claimant the Hearing Officer's determination was annulled because the misbehavior report did not set forth the date and time of the alleged violation. Additionally, it was ordered that claimant's institutional record be expunged with regard to the infraction. Analysis
Claimant brought a wrongful confinement claim and subsequently sought summary judgment. The motion was denied due to claimant's failure to meet his burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Waters v State of New York, UID No. 2014-040-055 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Dec. 12, 2014]). Claimant's motion for a trial preference was also denied (Waters v State of New York, UID 2016-040-062 [Ct Cl, McCarthy, J., Sept. 20, 2016]). --------
It is well established that the State is accorded absolute immunity for the actions of its employees involved in the investigation and prosecution of disciplinary charges brought against inmates in a correctional facility and for the actions of the Hearing Officer charged with presiding over and reviewing such matters. This immunity covers the discretionary conduct due to its quasi-judicial nature, even if that discretion was erroneously exercised or the findings were subsequently overturned (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]; Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765 [3d Dept 2001]; Varela v State of New York, 283 AD2d 841 [3d Dept 2001]; Vasquez v State of New York, 10 AD3d 825 [3d Dept 2004]).
Absolute immunity may be lost, however, if the State acted in contravention of a governing rule or regulation which caused the inmate to suffer actual prejudice or a deprivation of his due process rights (see Davidson v State of New York, 66 AD3d 1089 [3d Dept 2009] [defendant's failure to comply with regulatory provisions in conducting disciplinary hearing did not eliminate defendant's cloak of immunity and cause of action for wrongful confinement was dismissed]). In this matter, the misbehavior report did not, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (a) (3), set forth the date and time regarding the charged violations. The misbehavior report did, however, otherwise detail the particulars of the alleged violations and claimant presented a defense to the charges at the disciplinary hearing.
It has been held that a misbehavior report is sufficiently specific if it provides enough information to enable the inmate to prepare a defense against the charge (see Matter of Huston v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1259 [3d Dept 2010] [misbehavior report was sufficiently specific to give notice of the charges]; Matter of Page v Fischer, 64 AD3d 1067 [3d Dept 2009] [misbehavior report must specify the factual basis for the charge with enough particularity to enable the inmate to prepare a defense]; Matter of Huntley v Goord, 261 AD2d 401 [2d Dept 1999] [misbehavior report was detailed enough to enable claimant to prepare a defense]). In this matter, claimant did not establish that defendant's failure to comply with 7 NYCRR § 251-3.1 (c) caused claimant actual prejudice in preparing his defense to the charges or that the outcome of the disciplinary hearing would have been different absent defendant's non-compliance. Notably, claimant acknowledged that he had previously provided services as an Inmate Law Clerk to the inmate identified in the misbehavior report and the absence of the precise date and time in the misbehavior report did not inhibit claimant's ability to present a defense at the Tier III hearing.
Accordingly, upon consideration of all the evidence before the Court, including listening to claimant testify on his own behalf, the Court finds that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proof at trial (see Watson v State of New York, 125 AD3d 1064 [3d Dept 2015]).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 124487.
August 24, 2017
White Plains, New York
WALTER RIVERA
Judge of the Court of Claims