New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GIDNEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-027-560, Claim No. 103152, Motion No. M-62909


Synopsis


Pro Se Summary Judgment Motion.

Case Information

UID:
2001-027-560
Claimant(s):
DAMON GIDNEY
Claimant short name:
GIDNEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103152
Motion number(s):
M-62909
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
ALTON R. WALDON, JR.
Claimant's attorney:
Damon Gidney, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Mary Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 17, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were reviewed by the court on this motion: Claimant's Notice of Motion, Claimant's Affidavit in Support and annexed Exhibits A-G, Claimant's "Answer to Affirmation in Opposition," Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition and annexed Exhibit 1, Filed Claim and Verified Answer.

Claimant, Damon Gidney, a pro se inmate, has moved for an order striking the Verified Answer filed by defendant, the State of New York, and granting summary judgment in his favor pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules(CPLR) R 3212.

Claimant puts forth numerous allegations of wrongdoing committed by the defendant in his Claim. Specifically, claimant brings this action sounding in false imprisonment. Claimant alleges that he was wrongfully confined from December 24, 1999 until April 10, 1999. He alleges the facts and circumstances in his Claim as follows. On December 24, 1999 claimant was incarcerated at the Green Haven Correctional Facility(Green Haven) when he was then transported with 16 other inmates to the Upstate Correctional Facility double bunk Special Housing Unit (SHU), S-200 Disciplinary Unit. On December 27, 1999 at the Upstate Correctional Facility the claimant was served with a Tier III Superintendent's proceeding misbehavior report, charging the claimant with violating Rule 104.12 of the Standards of Inmate Behavior in All Facilities. At the Tier III Superintendent's Proceeding held on December 30, 1999, claimant was found guilty of violating Rule 104.12, which in pertinent part states that claimant intended a planned work stoppage and intended to create an atmosphere which would pose a threat to the safety and security of both inmates and staff. Claimant was sentenced to 12 months of special housing unit confinement, 20 days keep-lock, 13 months loss of packages, 12 months loss of commissary, 12 months loss of phone privileges and 12 months recommended loss of good time. Claimant administratively appealed this decision on January 20, 2000. On March 6, 2000, the claimant received a statement from the Director of Special Housing that the decision rendered at the December 30, 1999 hearing was reviewed and modified. On March 9, 2000, the Prisoner's Legal Services submitted an appeal on claimant's behalf. On March 28, 2000, claimant received a statement from the Director of Special Housing in which claimant was informed that hearing decision rendered on December 30, 1999 was reversed on March 24, 2000. Claimant alleges that he was not released from the SHU confinement until April 10, 2000.

Defendant, in its opposition papers, asserts that this claim must be dismissed since it did not receive a Claim from claimant until September 28, 2000. Claimant asserts in his Affidavit that a Notice of Intention to File a Claim against the State of New York was served on the Attorney General's Office on June 6, 2000. In support of this assertion, claimant has attached, as part of Exhibit A, a copy of a certified mail receipt, dated June 7, 2000. This receipt lists the Attorney General's Office, Department of Law, Albany N.Y. 12224 as the intended recipient. Therefore, it appears that a timely Notice of Intention was served on the Attorney General's Office and a dismissal is not warranted upon the grounds of untimeliness.

However, claimant's motion for summary judgment must be denied. The defendant may be entitled to immunity for a substantial period of claimant's confinement. Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 532 NYS2d 57(1988).

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied.



May 17, 2001
New York, New York
HON. ALTON R. WALDON, JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims