New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FELDER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-010-042, Claim No. 105374


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-010-042
Claimant(s):
DANIEL FELDER The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper party defendant.
Claimant short name:
FELDER
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper party defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105374
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
DANIEL FELDERPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 3, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Sing Sing). Claimant contends that his personal photographs were wrongfully taken and that he was assaulted by Sing Sing staff on October 1, 2001.
Claimant testified that on October 1, 2001, he observed several correction officers in his cell placing photographs in their pockets and bags. Later that day, he was interviewed by Lieutenant Kerrigan and Sergeant McNamara. According to claimant, at the end of the interview he was assaulted by Kerrigan and McNamara.[1]
Lieutenant Harry Kerrigan testified that he has been a correction officer at Sing Sing since 1983. He stated that he ordered the search of
claimant's cell because he was found to be in possession of a photograph of the husband of a correction officer. Kerrigan explained that it was a violation of facility policy for an inmate to have a photograph of a member of an employee's family; thus the photograph was considered contraband. The interview was conducted to ascertain how claimant came into possession of the picture. Kerrigan recalled that claimant was cooperative rather than agitated during the interview. After the interview, with the exception of the photograph, claimant's property was returned.
Kerrigan testified that
claimant left after the interview and there was no other contact. Kerrigan insisted that neither he nor anyone else assaulted or threatened claimant.
Upon listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, the Court finds Kerrigan's version of the facts to be more credible than
claimant's version. Accordingly, Claim No. 105374 is dismissed.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 105374.


March 3, 2004
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims





[1] Claimant seeks a copy of the tape of the interview. Lieutenant Kerrigan testified that it does not exist. In any event, the interview is not in issue and would not shed any light on the alleged assault which allegedly took place after the interview.