Claimant alleges he was assaulted by a Correction Officer (hereinafter C.O.) at
Watertown Correctional Facility on August 6, 2003. He testified that a riot
broke out in the yard that day, and everyone near the incident was handcuffed
and told to kneel until other officers could transport them individually to the
draft area. Claimant testified that he was working out and had nothing to do
with the riot. When it was Claimant's turn to be moved to the draft area, the
C.O. who escorted him was yelling at him and was rough. Claimant testified that
when they reached the doorway, the C.O. banged his head against the metal door
frame. Claimant testified other inmates witnessed the
He said he requested medical
attention but did not receive it. The following day, his eye was bruised and
were taken which show a slight
discoloration of Claimant's left eye.
Claimant said he was angry when he arrived at the draft area and was yelling at
the C.O.'s. He received a misbehavior report and 15 days in the Special Housing
Claimant alleged in his verified claim that C.O. Kogut assaulted him. Claimant
testified that he tried to obtain the name of the officer who escorted him to
the draft area that day. He identified C.O. Kogut as the assailant after he saw
him and thought he looked like the C.O. who had taken him to the draft area.
The State called C.O. Mustizer to testify. He was in the draft area and was
removing the handcuffs from the inmates. Claimant threatened him and refused a
direct order which formed the basis for the misbehavior report. He said the
Claimant never asked for medical assistance and he did not see any injury. C.O.
Mustizer agreed that Claimant had requested the name of the officer who escorted
Cheryl Kavan, a keyboard specialist at Watertown Correctional Facility,
testified that Exhibit B was a business record kept in the regular course of
business. It was C.O. Kogut's time record which showed he was not working on
August 6, 2003.
Defendant did not call any other witnesses. The Court finds Claimant's
description of the events credible and there was no conflicting evidence. The
photographs in evidence show some bruising over Claimant's left
To establish a cause of action for battery, there must be proof of bodily
contact with offensive intent (Hassan v Marriott Corp., 243 AD2d 406,
407). Although physical injury need not be present for an assault, the conduct
must be such that it places Claimant in imminent apprehension of harmful contact
Here, Claimant has established intentional offensive bodily contact. Claimant
is entitled to $100 for his bruised eye.
It is hereby ORDERED, that to the extent claimant has paid a filing fee, it may
be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act §11-a(2).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.