New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MAILEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-009-013, Claim No. 102611, Motion Nos. M-62438, CM-62699


Synopsis


Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment based upon sovereign immunity (Arteaga) was granted. Claimant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-009-013
Claimant(s):
DAVID M. MAILEY This motion and the cross-motion were both brought under Claim No. 102634, which is a claim filed by claimant David M. Mailey alleging negligent medical treatment and violation of his civil rights based upon an incident occurring March 1, 2000. A review of all of the papers submitted herein, however, establish that these proceedings are in reference instead to Claim No. 102611, a claim filed by Mr. Mailey seeking damages for allegedly wrongful confinement, as more particularly set forth in this decision and order. The Court, therefore, has sua sponte changed the claim number to properly reflect the claim which is the subject of this motion.
Claimant short name:
MAILEY
Footnote (claimant name) :
This motion and the cross-motion were both brought under Claim No. 102634, which is a claim filed by claimant David M. Mailey alleging negligent medical treatment and violation of his civil rights based upon an incident occurring March 1, 2000. A review of all of the papers submitted herein, however, establish that these proceedings are in reference instead to Claim No. 102611, a claim filed by Mr. Mailey seeking damages for allegedly wrongful confinement, as more particularly set forth in this decision and order. The Court, therefore, has sua sponte changed the claim number to properly reflect the claim which is the subject of this motion.
Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
102611
Motion number(s):
M-62438
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-62699
Judge:
Nicholas V. Midey, Jr.
Claimant's attorney:
DAVID M. MAILEY, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Carla T. Rutigliano, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 30, 2001
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought a motion seeking an order of summary judgment on liability, and defendant has responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion and cross-motion:
Motion for Judgment (M-62438) 1


Notice for Cross-Motion, Affirmation, with Exhibits (CM-62699) 2,3

In his claim, claimant alleges that he was damaged as a result of a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him, and also that he was falsely keep-locked for a period of 15 days during the pendency of this hearing.

On December 15, 1999, while he was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, claimant was issued a misbehavior report alleging that claimant was in possession of a weapon and/or an altered item in violation of prison rules. On that date, he was then placed in keep-lock. A Tier III hearing was commenced on December 18, 1999, which was concluded on December 29, 1999. At the close of this hearing, claimant was found not guilty and the charges were dismissed. From December 15, 1999 (when the misbehavior report was first issued) to December 29, 1999 (the conclusion of the Tier III hearing), claimant had been restricted to keep-lock status. He was released from keep-lock status at the conclusion of the hearing in which he was found not guilty.

Claimant has now filed this claim alleging malicious prosecution as well as illegal confinement for the 15 days that he spent in keep-lock.

It is well settled that disciplinary decisions made by correction officials that are prosecutorial or quasi-judicial in nature are protected by sovereign immunity (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212). The decision by facility officials, therefore, to issue a misbehavior report and proceed with a Tier III disciplinary hearing is entitled to the protection afforded by Arteaga, even though claimant was ultimately found not guilty at this hearing. Furthermore, even though claimant was found not guilty at the disciplinary hearing, the penalty imposed during the disciplinary process (the confinement of claimant to keep-lock status) remains immunized (see, Minieri v State of New York, 204 AD2d 982).

It is clear, therefore, that claimant is not entitled to recover damages for the actions taken by facility officials during this disciplinary process.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-62438 is hereby DENIED; and Cross-Motion No. CM-62699 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Claim No. 102611 is hereby DISMISSED.

March 30, 2001
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims