New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BOWDEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-014-516, Claim No. 96086, Motion No. M-62586


Synopsis


Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-014-516
Claimant(s):
RICHARD BOWDEN
Claimant short name:
BOWDEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
96086
Motion number(s):
M-62586
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Richard Bowden, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 20, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim: Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits annexed.


The claim alleges that the claimant, a State prison inmate, was confined to special housing for violation of a rule that had not yet been promulgated to the institutional population; and that on administrative appeal the punishment of confinement to the special housing unit was annulled and the charge dismissed.

While it is true that the State is absolutely immune in connection with the institution and determination of prison disciplinary proceedings, as long as there has been compliance with the regulations of the Department of Correctional Services (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212), the defendant's submission does not address the allegation in the claim that the claimant was "convicted of violating an unposted Inmate Rule of Behavior that did not even exist in the rule books available at the time." It does not appear that the claim is predicated solely on the fact that the determination was reversed, which would warrant dismissal; the foregoing allegation can be understood to allege that applicable procedures were not followed. As such, an issue of fact remains unresolved upon the record before the Court. The defendant has not met its burden on a motion for summary judgment.

In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant's motion is denied.


February 20, 2001
New York, New York

HON. S. MICHAEL NADEL
Judge of the Court of Claims