Opinion
# 2012-018-341 Claim No. 121111-A Motion No. M-82260
12-13-2012
RANDY WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
The claim fails to set forth a cause of action on which damages may be awarded in this Court and Defendant's motion is granted. Case information
UID: 2012-018-341 Claimant(s): RANDY WILLIAMS Claimant short name: WILLIAMS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 121111-A Motion number(s): M-82260 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: DIANE L. FITZPATRICK RANDY WILLIAMS Claimant's attorney: Pro Se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Joel L. Marmelstein, Esquire Assistant Attorney General (Retired) Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 13, 2012 City: Syracuse Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Defendant brings a motion seeking dismissal of the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a) (2) and (7). Claimant opposes the motion.
The claim alleges that on January 4, 2012 and January 6, 2012, certain correction officers at Gouverneur Correctional Facility (GCF) threatened Claimant in retaliation for filing grievances against them. Specifically, Claimant asserts that on January 4, 2012, Captain Rockwood stated he was "going to get [him]," and on January 6, 2012 that Claimant was falsely accused of hiding marijuana in his cell. He further stated that Sergeant (Sgt.) Leone told him black people were not allowed to file complaints in GCF. The claim also alleges a pattern of behavior by the correction officers causing mental anguish, psychological pain, extensive mental pain, humiliation, shock, anxiety, terror and emotional distress. The damages listed are lost earnings of $4.80 per day, mental anguish, pain and suffering. The pain and suffering was due to wrongful confinement in the SHU where Claimant alleges he was not fed or given medical attention and that he had property confiscated.
As Defendant argues, actions for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the State are prohibited as against public policy (see Brown v State of New York, 125 AD2d 750 [3d Dept 1986], appeal dismissed 70 NY2d 747 [1987]; De Lesline v State of New York, 91 AD2d 785 [3d Dept 1982], appeal denied 58 NY2d 610 [1983]). The avenue to redress retaliation claims is through the inmate grievance procedure, and if no relief is granted thereby an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court (see Zulu v State of New York, UID No. 2001-103-006 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., May 21, 2001]; Moates v State of New York, UID No. 2000-018-044 [Ct Cl, Fitzpatrick, J., Sept. 25, 2000]). Those causes of action must be dismissed.
Claimant also seeks damages for New York State Constitutional violations. In Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [1996], the Court of Appeals found that a cause of action for a constitutional tort may be brought in this Court but only where traditional remedies do not exist. Claimant, here, had other means of redress and, therefore, resorting to a constitutional tort remedy is not necessary (Matter of Hakeem v Wong, 223 AD2d 765 [1996] lv denied 88 NY2d 802 [1996]). The constitutional claims must also be dismissed.
Further, Claimant has alleged wrongful confinement seeking as part of his damages lost earnings resulting therefrom. Defendant contends Claimant's failure to set forth the number of days he was wrongfully confined and a specific amount for damages divests this Court of jurisdiction pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). A claim for wrongful confinement is a species of false imprisonment which is an action for personal injuries and, thus, there is no requirement for such a claim to set forth "the total sum claimed." (General Construction Law 37-a; Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]).
Nonetheless, it is apparent from the allegations that there is no assertion that Defendant failed to timely release Claimant from confinement in accordance with the punishment imposed, a ministerial error. Rather, Claimant alleges that the State improperly charged him with misbehavior for a violation of prison rules and regulations and, therefore, should not have confined him at all. This implicates the State's discretionary conduct as to what charges to bring against an inmate, whether there is sufficient evidence to support the charges, and whether the punishment is appropriate. These are matters which this Court lacks the jurisdiction to review, even if the State's actions were negligent or the result of malice (McLean v City of New York, 12 NY3d 194, 202 [2009]; Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34, 40 [1983]). Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, the claim fails to set forth a cause of action on which damages may be awarded in this Court and Defendant's motion is granted.
The claim must be DISMISSED.
December 13, 2012
Syracuse, New York
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims
The Court has considered the following documents in deciding this motion:
1) Notice of Motion.
2) Affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein, Esquire, in support, with exhibits attached thereto.
3) Reply affidavit of Randy Williams in support (sic) of motion, sworn to October 15, 2012.