New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

Montanez v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-029-032, Claim No. 96237


Synopsis


Prisoner - assault, fellow inmate. Clmt not a known risk. Assailant not a dangerous prisoner. No State notice of assault. No liability. Dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2000-029-032
Claimant(s):
ROBERTO MONTANEZ
Claimant short name:
Montanez
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
96237
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
STEPHEN J. MIGNANO
Claimant's attorney:
Roberto Montanez, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 6, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant,
pro se, seeks to recover damages based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant. The claim alleges that on January 17, 1997, while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (hereinafter Sing Sing), claimant was stabbed by another inmate. Claimant alleges that the State was negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision to prevent the attack. The trial of this claim was held on October 26, 2000 at Sing Sing.
Claimant testified that on the afternoon of January 17, 1997, at about 1:55 he was working as an inmate porter in M Gallery at Sing Sing when he was stabbed by another inmate. Claimant stated that he does not know the inmate who stabbed him. He further testified that prior to this incident he never had a problem with any other inmate. Claimant asserted that no correction officers were present at the time he was assaulted.

Despite claimant's assertion that the correction officers at Sing Sing were not at their posts as required, claimant submitted no specific rule or regulation which he asserts was violated. Further, even if the C.O. was absent from his post (as asserted by claimant), there was no evidence that such absence was causally related to the attack. Simply, the Court is not persuaded that the presence of a C.O. at the end of the gallery would have prevented this assault.

While the State must provide inmates reasonable protection against foreseeable risks of attack by other inmates
(Blake v State of New York, 259 AD2d 878; Sebastiano v State of New York, 112 AD2d 562), the State is not an insurer of the safety of inmates, and the fact that an assault occurs does not give rise to the inference of negligence (Sebastiano v State of New York, supra).
In order to establish liability on behalf of the State, an inmate claimant must allege and prove one of the following grounds: (1) the victim was a known risk and the State failed to provide reasonable protection (
see, Sebastiano v State of New York, supra); (2) the State had notice that the assailant was dangerous and refused to take the proper precautions (see, Littlejohn v State of New York, 218 AD2d 833; Wilson v State of New York, 36 AD2d 559); or (3) the State had ample notice and the latitude to mediate and failed to act (see, Huertas v State of New York, 84 AD2d 650).
Claimant offered no proof that he was a known risk, nor did he present any evidence that his assailant was a known dangerous prisoner, thereby placing the State on notice of any increased likelihood of assault. The record fails to establish any motive for the assault, or any indication that claimant or his assailant ever engaged in violent attacks or other disruptive conduct while incarcerated. Claimant also failed to establish that the State had notice that the attack would occur or was likely to occur.

Under the factual circumstances of the present case, liability against the State cannot be found. Despite the unwarranted and vicious assault upon the claimant, the proof offered at trial demonstrates none of the grounds necessary for a finding of liability involving an assault by one inmate upon another inmate in a State correctional institution. Unremitting supervision of inmates is not required (
Colon v State of New York, 209 AD2d 842).
Based upon the evidence presented, we find and conclude that while claimant was assaulted and sustained various injuries, he has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the State was negligent in failing to properly supervise the inmates.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the claim is dismissed. The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.



November 6, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. STEPHEN J. MIGNANO
Judge of the Court of Claims