New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BOWDEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-014-546, Claim No. 96086, Motion Nos. M-63035, CM-63165


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Pro se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy Susan J. Pogoda, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 12, 2001
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read on the claimant's motion to compel discovery and on the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim: Notice of Motion, Affidavit of Good Faith; Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits annexed; Reply to Defendant's Notice of Cross Motion.

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.

By Order filed February 23, 2001 (Motion No. M-62586, New York State Court of Claims Decision #2000-014-539[1]), the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim, stating:
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.
The defendant's submission on the instant cross motion satisfies its burden by including documentation (annexed as Exhibits C, D, E and F) which establishes that the rule which the claimant was accused of violating was included in the "Standards of Inmate Behavior" which was in effect at the pertinent time. The claimant's opposition is insufficient to establish that the claim is predicated on anything other than that the disciplinary determination was reversed. The defendant's motion is granted; the claim is dismissed. The claimant's motion to compel discovery is denied as moot.

June 12, 2001
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

[1].Decisions of the New York State Court of Claims are available at the Court's website at