New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SIMONE-TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-032, Claim No. 108650


Synopsis


Claim by inmate for excessive confinement was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-032
Claimant(s):
KIFARU SIMONE-TAYLOR III
Claimant short name:
SIMONE-TAYLOR
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108650
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
KIFARU SIMONE-TAYLOR IIIPro 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:
May 31, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for the time he was confined to keeplock in 2003 while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Sing Sing).
Upon
claimant's transfer from Southport Correctional Facility (Southport) to Sing Sing, he was placed in keeplock for 33 days. Claimant contends that this was an error and that the penalty he received at two disciplinary hearings at Southport on April 3, 2004 should have run concurrently rather than consecutively. The hearing officers did not specify how the penalty was to run.
Lieutenant Edward Mydosh testified that he has been employed by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) for 23 years and is the Disciplinary Lieutenant at Sing Sing. In this position, he is familiar with the disciplinary process and inmates' records. Mydosh reviewed a computer printout of
claimant's disciplinary history and explained that, when claimant was transferred to Sing Sing, he had 23 days keeplock remaining from a Tier II disciplinary penalty and 10 days keeplock from a Tier III hearing. Both hearings were held on April 3, 2004, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon (Ex. A). DOCS Directive No. 4932, Section 253.7(2) provides that, unless the hearing officer advised otherwise, the penalty imposed "shall run consecutively" to any other penalty previously imposed (Ex. 2). Accordingly, the Court finds claimant's penalty imposed was to run consecutively and that, therefore, claimant's confinement in keeplock was not excessive.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 108650.


May 31, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims