New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

NELSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-031-507, Claim No. 112180


Claimant failed to demonstrate that he was assaulted, that he was illegally confined or that he was denied proper medical care. Claim dismissed

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

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

Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Defendant’s attorney:
New York State Attorney General
BY: BONNIE GAIL LEVY, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 26, 2008

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant, Willie Frank Nelson, filed claim 112180 on April 5, 2006, alleging that he was assaulted, illegally confined, and denied medical care while an inmate at Five Points Correctional Facility (“Five Points”). I conducted the trial of this matter on June 20, 2008, at Auburn Correctional Facility (“Auburn”).

Claimant testified that each of his causes of action is related to an incident which occurred on March 1, 2005. On that date, he was directed to report to work at the mess hall at Five Points. According to Claimant, he had injured his hand in an altercation on January 7, 2005 and was scheduled to have hand surgery. While awaiting the surgery, he was to have been given light duty work. In the mess hall, he felt that he was inappropriately instructed to do dishes in the “pot room.” He refused to do this work for several reasons. First, he alleges that another inmate told him that he heard two guards say “Nelson is on his way down, make sure you take care of him.” Claimant interpreted this statement to mean that members of a prison gang were waiting in the pot room to assault him. He stated that the mess hall officers knew and were a part of the conspiracy to assault him in the pot room. Second, he believes that he should not have been directed to work in the pot room because he had a medical excuse to have light duty.

When he wouldn’t go into the pot room as directed, he was given an inmate misbehavior report (“ IMR”), charging him with violations of rules 104.13 (creating a disturbance), 106.10 (disobeying a direct order) and 109.10 (out of place).

Claimant alleges that, at the subsequent disciplinary hearing, his due process rights were violated because he was denied the right to call one of his requested witnesses, other witnesses were interviewed off the record, and he was not allowed to submit his documentary evidence. Claimant was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days of keeplock. Claimant also testified that, due to the IMR and his subsequent punishment, he missed his scheduled hand surgery and that, as of the date of the trial, he had still not had the required surgery.

Upon motion by Defendant at the conclusion of Claimant’s case, I dismissed Claimant’s medical malpractice cause of action due to Claimant’s failure to present expert medical testimony that the care he received had deviated from good and accepted standards of medical care (see Rossi v Arnot Ogden Med. Ctr., 268 AD2d 916; Spicer v Community Family Planning Council Health Ctr., 272 AD2d 317; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516).

With regard to the assault, Claimant’s own testimony confirms that no assault ever took place. Claimant concedes that he was never physically touched but believes that an assault occurred because he feared for his safety upon hearing that the correction officers said, “Nelson is on his way down, make sure you take care of him.” Of, course this statement is by no means an obvious threat. It could just as easily have meant, and probably did mean, that the officers needed to find work for Claimant when he arrived. Further, Claimant was with the guards while in the mess hall and never even went into the pot room where he believes the assault was to have occurred. “An assault is the intentional placing of another person in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact” (PJI 3:2 [2008]). Claimant was not threatened with “imminent harmful or offensive contact.” To the extent that Claimant was fearful, I find that such fear was unreasonable. Accordingly, Claimant failed to prove a prima facie case of assault.

With regard to his illegal confinement cause of action, I find that Claimant, again, failed to meet his burden of proof. Initially, I note that Claimant admitted he did not have a medical excuse for refusing to work. Accordingly, he had no valid reason for refusing the officer’s direct order to work in the pot room. Claimant alleges that his due process rights were violated because the interview with medical personnel concerning this issue was made by telephone, and not in person. He also alleges that he was not permitted to call a witness concerning his request for a job assignment away from the mess hall. I find that the witness was properly excluded and that it was not improper to question the medical personnel by telephone. 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).

It was Claimant’s burden in this matter to demonstrate that he was denied due process at the hearing; that the disciplinary hearing was conducted in violation of the relevant rules before he could recover on this claim for monetary compensation. He has failed. There is no indication that Defendant violated any of its own rules and regulations in conducting the hearing, or 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). Moreover, as stated by the Honorable Richard E. Sise, in Rivera v State of New York (Ct Cl, February 8, 2006 [Claim No. 102781], UID No. 2006-028-008), “Before a violation of one of the rules or regulations governing prison disciplinary hearings can become the basis for an award of money damages from the State, it must be established that the violation caused actual injury to the inmate.” Here, as in Rivera, there was no evidence produced which indicated that the underlying disciplinary hearing would have had a different result if the witness had testified. On the contrary, Claimant clearly had no valid reason for refusing to work in the mess hall on the day in question. The evidence appears to indicate that the hearing determination would have been the same whether or not Claimant was permitted to call his witness or have the medical personnel testify in person.

Finally, with regard to Claimant’s allegations of medical neglect, I note that Claimant himself admitted that he had no medical restriction placed on his ability to work. Further, Claimant’s own Exhibit 1 demonstrates that, not only was Claimant never scheduled for hand surgery, but that the medical care providers at Five Points determined that no further treatment was necessary. Claimant has failed to offer any evidence that would indicate otherwise.
Accordingly, Claim Number 112180 is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety.

Any and all motions on which the Court may have previously reserved decision or which were not previously determined are hereby denied.


September 26, 2008
Rochester, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims