New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PENDER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-543, Claim No. 99705, Motion No. M-61580


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for re-argument of a motion which resulted in dismissal of the claim which alleges false imprisonment based on a confinement to the Special Housing Unit under

regulations providing for administrative segregation is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-543
Claimant(s):
PAUL PENDER
Claimant short name:
PENDER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99705
Motion number(s):
M-61580
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Thomas J. McNamara
Claimant's attorney:
Paul Pender, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Eileen E. Bryant, Esq., of counsel)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 12, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has moved for re-argument of a motion which resulted in dismissal of the claim which alleges false imprisonment based upon a confinement to the Special Housing Unit under regulations providing for administrative segregation (Pender v State of New York, M-60627, December 21, 1999, McNamara, J.). Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Products Co. Inc., 112 AD2d 410). The motion to dismiss was granted after the court determined that the hearing required under the regulations governing administrative segregation was timely conducted. Claimant, relying on Directive No. 4933 §301.3(c), 7 NYCRR 301.3(c), now argues that the watch commander was required to review his detention every 24 hours and that no review was made until he had been confined for twelve days. The regulation Claimant relies on applies to detention admissions where no notice of administrative segregation has been issued. Here, however, a notice of administrative segregation had been issued and the hearing required by the regulations was, as previously noted by the court, timely held. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

July 12, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of Motion dated April 19, 2000.
  2. Affidavit in Support sworn to the 19th day of April, 2000 with exhibits annexed.