New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BONDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-010-049, Claim No. 93351


Synopsis


Inmate excessive confinement

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-049
Claimant(s):
JOHNNIE BONDS
Claimant short name:
BONDS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
93351
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
JOHNNIE BONDSPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date:
August 11, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding
pro se, seeks damages for excessive confinement in keeplock, at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, when he was not released as ordered on December 1, 1994, but remained in keeplock until December 2, 1994. This claim was heard in a unified trial.
Claimant testified that on November 25, 1994, he was placed in keeplock for rules violations. On December 1, 1994, after a hearing, claimant was found not guilty and was ordered released. According to claimant, he informed the housing officers that he was to be released, but they indicated that they were unable to verify such order. Consequently, claimant was not released until December 2, 1994.

The quasi judicial acts of correction employees taken in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures are entitled to immunity (
see, Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212). The fact that the charges were ultimately dismissed does not give rise to a cognizable cause of action where there is no evidence defendant acted inconsistently with its own rules and regulations (see, Arteaga v State of New York, supra; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc2d 399,406).
7 NYCRR § 251-5.1(a) provides, "Where an inmate is confined pending a disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing, the hearing must be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable following the inmate's initial confinement pending said disciplinary hearing or superintendent's hearing, but, in no event may it be commenced beyond seven days of said confinement without authorization of the commissioner or his designee." In calculating the statutory time period, the date the misbehavior report is written is excluded (
see, Matter of Faison v Senkowski, 256 AD2d 702).
Claimant's confinement from November 25, 1994 until December 1, 1994 was within the statutorily permissible time period. However, claimant was ordered released on December 1, 1994 and was not released until December 2, 1994. Accordingly, the Court finds that claimant was wrongfully confined for one day and that he is entitled to damages in the amount of $10.00 as fair and reasonable compensation (
see, Minieri v State of New York, 204 AD2d 982).
All motions not heretofore ruled upon are DENIED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

August 11, 2000
White Plains , New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims