New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-016-014, Claim No. 115216, Motion No. M-77571

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2010-016-014
Claimant(s): CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS
Claimant short name: EDWARDS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 115216
Motion number(s): M-77571
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Christopher Edwards, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 1, 2010
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant Christopher Edwards moves for summary judgment in his favor. In his claim, Mr. Edwards, an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility, alleges that on February 3, 2008, he was wrongfully issued a misbehavior report.

The misbehavior report was issued after claimant refused an order to report for work. The parties disagree as to whether the misbehavior report was properly given. On the one hand, for example, the grievance response annexed to the claim states that, "it is true that [claimant] volunteered for the assignment. The Lieutenant who gave the order that he was to work was not familiar with the arrangement but the situation was reviewed with him and clarified. This miscommunication has been corrected . . ." On the other hand, defendant argues that the correction officer did have the right to give claimant a direct order to work. See 10 of defendant's affirmation in opposition and exhibit B thereto.

It should be noted that even assuming the misbehavior report should not have been given or that claimant was found not guilty, that alone is not a sufficient ground for claimant to prevail. "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). Further, "[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). Neither party has indicated what happened after the misbehavior report was issued, i.e., whether a disciplinary hearing was held, what its disposition was or whether it was conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.

In view of the foregoing, issues of fact remain which preclude the granting of this motion. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-77571 be denied.

March 1, 2010

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims


1. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support; defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits A and B; and claimant's reply papers entitled "Notice of Motion for an Order Dismissing Roberto Barbosa['s] Opposition to Claimant's Summary Judgment Request for Failure to Serve their Opposition 'On'Claimant on or before January 20, 2010 and for an Order Granting Summary Judgment" with affidavit in support, undesignated exhibits and further affidavit. It should be noted that to the extent claimant complains of not having received defendant's opposition papers until January 22, 2010, he has shown no prejudice, as the court has received and considered his reply submission thereafter filed on February 1, 2010.