New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRISSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-101, , Motion No. M-67031


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2003-031-101
Claimant(s):
CURTIS BRISSON
Claimant short name:
BRISSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

Motion number(s):
M-67031
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
CURTIS BRISSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: HEATHER R. RUBINSTEIN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 8, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Claimant for permission to file a late claim:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion, filed June 26, 2003:
2. Claimant's Affidavit, sworn to June 9, 2003, with attached exhibits;
3. Affirmation of Heather R. Rubinstein, dated July 29, 2003, with attached exhibit.This is the motion of Curtis Brisson for permission to file a late claim pursuant to § 10(6) of the Court of Claims Act. The proposed claim alleges that, after failing to complete his program at Willard Drug Treatment Center, Claimant was confined at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn") pending a finale parole revocation hearing. Claimant alleges that when he was received at Auburn he was technically still on parole status, and therefore his confinement at Auburn was improper.

However, as Defendant points out, the parole violation warrant was issued while Claimant was being supervised at the Willard Drug Treatment Center. CPL § 410.91(8) provides that "a parole violation warrant issued for a violation committed while the parolee is being supervised at a drug treatment campus shall constitute authority for the immediate placement of the parolee into a correctional facility operated by the department of correctional services."

As the conduct of which Mr. Brisson complains is not actionable, but rather specifically authorized by statute, he has failed to state a cause of action against Defendant. His application for permission to file a late claim must, therefore be denied.

December 8, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims