|Claimant short name:||KASIEM|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||Alan C. Marin|
|Claimant's attorney:||Allah Kasiem, Pro Se|
|Defendant's attorney:||Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, AAG
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||January 7, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
Claimant Allah Kasiem moves for an order striking the defendant's answer and for summary judgment in his favor. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment in its favor.
In his claim, Mr. Kasiem alleges as follows. On March 9, 2009, while incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility, he was wrongfully issued a misbehavior report in connection with his reporting of alleged misconduct on the part of correction officers. Thereafter, a disciplinary hearing was held at which he was found guilty and sentenced, inter alia, to 90 days of confinement in keeplock status.(1) On April 13, 2009, the guilty finding was reversed after claimant had served 35 days of keeplock confinement.
"Corrections personnel are entitled to absolute immunity for those 'discretionary decisions in furtherance of general policies and purposes where the exercise of reasoned judgment can produce different acceptable results.'" Minieri v State of New York, 204 AD2d 982, 613 NYS2d 510, 511 (4th Dept 1994), citing Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212, 532 NYS2d 57 (1988). It should also be noted that "[d]isciplinary proceedings in correctional facilities that are conducted consistent with the applicable rules and regulations are covered with a blanket of immunity . . . The fact that claimant was ultimately found not guilty of the charge does not give rise to a viable claim." Brown v State of New York, Ct Cl filed 10/27/98, Bell, J. (unreported, claim nos. 94875 and 94876). Kasiem has not alleged that defendant violated any rules or regulations in terms of the conduct of his disciplinary hearing.
In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions, IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-77319 be denied, that cross-motion no. CM-77401 be granted, and that claim no. 116885 be dismissed.
January 7, 2010
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Exhibit C to defendant's cross-motion papers indicates that the charges on which claimant was found guilty were "interference with employee," "harassment" and "false statements or [information]."