New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MORILLO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-012, Claim No. 107761


Synopsis


Inmate's claim for injuries sustained after an assault by either "two or three inmates" was dismissed as claimant failed to establish defendant's liability for the attack.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-012
Claimant(s):
CARLOS MORILLO
Claimant short name:
MORILLO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107761
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
CARLOS MORILLOPro 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:
February 3, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for injuries he sustained in February 2003 when he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
According to Claim Number 107761, in February
claimant was "assaulted by either two or three Inmates, receiving one cut to his head approximately 6" long" (Claim). At trial, claimant testified he was assaulted on A block but he never saw his assailants, he had never been involved in a fight at prison and he did not know why he was attacked.
To establish liability in an inmate assault case, claimant must demonstrate one of the following: (1) the State knew or should have known that claimant was at risk of being assaulted and yet failed to provide claimant with reasonable protection; (2) the State knew or should have known that
the assailant was prone to perpetrating such an assault and the State did not take proper precautionary measures; or (3) the State had ample notice and opportunity to intervene but did not act. "The State will be liable in negligence for an assault by another inmate only upon a showing that it failed to exercise adequate care to prevent that which was reasonably foreseeable" (Wilson v State of New York, 303 AD2d 678, 679).
Upon consideration of all the evidence, t
he Court finds there was insufficient evidence to establish defendant's liability for the attack. "[T]he State's duty to prisoners does not mandate unremitting surveillance in all circumstances, and does not render the State an insurer of inmate safety. *** The mere occurrence of an inmate assault, without credible evidence that the assault was reasonably foreseeable, cannot establish the negligence of the State" (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247, 256).
`
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 107761.


February 3, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims