4. Filed Papers: Claim. This is Defendant's motion filed in lieu of an answer
seeking dismissal of the claim. The claim, filed on June 11, 2003, alleges
that, on March 16, 2003, while confined at Willard Drug Treatment Center,
Claimant received an inmate misbehavior report. The claim also alleges that
Claimant was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing relating to the inmate
misbehavior report, and that this determination was affirmed on appeal.
In support of its motion, Defendant asserts that the claim failed to set forth
a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. I agree.
The claim sets forth only the minimal facts that Claimant was found guilty of
violations of the Inmate Disciplinary Code. Claimant does not indicate that his
confinement was improper. Even if one were to indulge the natural inclination
to assume that Claimant believes that his confinement was improper, the claim
gives no indication as to why Claimant believes this is the case.
In a motion to dismiss a claim, the pertinent provisions of § 3211(a)(7)
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules provide that a ". . . party may move for
judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the
ground that . . . the pleading fails to state a cause of action . . . ." In
such a motion, the movant, here Defendant, is held to have conceded the truth of
every fact alleged by the Claimant for purposes of the motion. Determination of
the motion, generally, does not rest upon resolution of the ultimate facts, but
rather on whether the facts asserted adequately set forth a viable cause of
action (see Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 275; cf.
Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., Inc., 40 NY2d 633).
With regard to his alleged illegal confinement, Claimant has failed to identify
what rule or regulation was violated during the hearings that resulted in his
confinement. In fact, Claimant does not allege anything improper at all.
The actions of prison personnel involving inmate disciplinary matters are
generally quasi-judicial and, unless they exceed the scope of their authority or
violate applicable rules, are afforded absolute immunity (Arteaga v State of
New York, 72 NY2d 212; Davis v State of New York, 262 AD2d 887, lv
denied 93 NY2d 819).
The claim contains no indication that Defendant violated any of its own rules
and regulations in conducting the hearing which resulted in Claimant's
confinement, or that Defendant otherwise acted outside the sphere of privileged
actions (Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, supra;
Holloway v State of New York, 285 AD2d 765; cf. Gittens v State
of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399 [Ct Cl 1986]). Accordingly, their
determinations are entitled to immunity and the claim for illegal confinement
must be dismissed.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for dismissal of the claim is granted
and the claim is dismissed in its entirety. Claimant's request for assignment
of counsel is denied as moot.