New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BONDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-010-051, Claim No. 93378-A


Synopsis


Inmate excessive confinement

Case Information

UID:
2000-010-051
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):
93378-A
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 during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. This claim was heard in a unified trial.
Claimant testified that on March 21, 1995, he was issued a misbehavior report and placed in keeplock. On March 27, 1995, claimant was issued another misbehavior report. On March 28, 1995, after a hearing on the March 21, 1995 misbehavior report, claimant was found not guilty. On March 29, 1995, after a hearing on the March 27, 1995 misbehavior report, claimant was found not guilty and was released from keeplock.

Both hearings were timely commenced within seven days of claimant's initial confinement pending each disciplinary hearing and were timely completed within fourteen days following the writing of each misbehavior report (
see, 7 NYCRR §§ 251-5.1(a),(b); Freeman v Selsky,___ AD2d ___,705 NYS2d 87 [in calculating the fourteen day period, the date upon which the Misbehavior Report was written is excluded]; Matter of Faison v Senkowski, 256 AD2d 702 [hearing properly concluded on fourteenth day following issuance of misbehavior report]).
Accordingly, the confinement was privileged and claimant is not entitled to damages. Moreover, 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, 72 NY2d 212; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc2d 399, 406).
Defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is hereby GRANTED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 93378-A.




August 11, 2000
White Plains , New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims