Opinion
# 2011-041-035 Claim No. 116047 Motion No. M-78426 Cross-Motion No. CM-78516
10-18-2011
WATSO 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: 2011-041-035 Claimant(s): JOSEPH WATSO Claimant short name: WATSO Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 116047 Motion number(s): M-78426 Cross-motion number(s): CM-78516 Judge: FRANK P. MILANO MICHAEL J. BROWN, P.C. Claimant's attorney: By: Michael J. Brown, Esq. 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: October 18, 2011 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant moves for partial summary judgment as to defendant's liability for unlawfully confining claimant. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim for failure to state a cause of action. The defendant's cross-motion will be considered first.
The claim alleges that defendant administratively, and unlawfully, added a five-year period of postrelease supervision to claimant's five year determinate criminal sentence of incarceration, resulting in claimant being later 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 cross-motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The claim is dismissed. The claimant's motion for partial summary judgment is denied as moot.
October 18, 2011
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed June 18, 2010;
2. Affirmation of Michael J. Brown, dated June 14, 2010, and annexed exhibits;
3. Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed July 8, 2010;
4. Affirmation of Michael T. Krenrich, dated July 7, 2010, and annexed exhibits.