Claimant has brought this motion seeking permission to renew a prior decision
and order of
this Court pursuant to CPLR Rule 2221(e).
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this
Letter Response from G. Lawrence Dillon, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, dated
October 11, 2006 3
In a prior Decision and Order
, this Court
dismissed the claim herein upon finding that the defendant was entitled to
absolute immunity for the discretionary decisions which formed the basis of
claimant’s claim, relying upon Arteaga v State of New York
, 72 NY2d
212. In his claim, claimant alleges that he was “set up” by
correction officers and/or other inmates, leading to a misbehavior report being
issued against him. At a disciplinary hearing, claimant was found guilty and
required to serve six months in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Mid-State
Correctional Facility. Following this administrative hearing, claimant sought
damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and wrongful confinement,
arising out of his placement in SHU.
Now, over one year later, claimant seeks to renew a prior motion which resulted
in the dismissal of his claim. He has submitted an affirmation (see Exhibit to
Items 1,2) from another inmate, one Eugene Jackson, supporting his contention
that he was “set up” by a correction officer. Pursuant to Rule
2221(e)(2), a motion for leave to renew must be “based upon new facts not
offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination”
and, pursuant to Rule 2221(e)(3), “shall contain reasonable justification
for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion.”
The prior decision and order of this Court dismissing the claim was based upon
the Court’s determination that the defendant was entitled to absolute
immunity for discretionary decisions made in the disciplinary hearing process.
In its decision and order, the Court found that claimant did not allege or
establish that the defendant violated any of its own rules and regulations in
conducting the hearing which resulted in his confinement to SHU, or that the
defendant exceeded the scope of its authority in conducting such proceeding.
The Court dismissed the claim based upon the absolute immunity provided by
In this application, although claimant has submitted an affirmation from
another inmate to support his contention that he was “set up”,
claimant has not provided any evidence that the defendant violated any of its
rules and regulations in conducting the hearing, or that it exceeded the scope
of its authority in the conduct of the proceeding. Claimant has not therefore
offered any new facts or evidence that would change the prior determination of
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that Motion No. M-72322 is hereby DENIED in its entirety.
. See Decision and Order, Larocco v State
of New York
, Ct Cl, July 20, 2005, Midey, J., Claim No. 110552, Motion Nos.
M-69931, and M-70004, (UID #2005-009-035). Unpublished decisions and selected
orders of the Court of Claims are available via the Internet at http://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us/decisions.