Willer v. State, # 2013-010-075

• Decision Date: 07 February 2014
• Docket Number: Claim No. 122313,CM-84284 # 2013-010-075,Claim No. M-84396,# 2013-010-075,Claim No. M-84067,Motion # 2013-010-075
• Parties: NIKO WILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
• Court: New York Court of Claims

NIKO WILLER

v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

# 2013-010-075

Claim No. 122313

Motion Nos. M-84067

CM-84284, M-84396

New York State Court of Claims

February 7, 2014

Synopsis

Claimant's motion for summary judgment on wrongful excessive confinement granted.

Case information

UID:                   2013-010-075
                Claimant(s):           NIKO WILLER
                Claimant short name:   WILLER
                Footnote (claimant     The caption has been amended to reflect claimant's
                name) :                proper name, a/k/a Niko Willis
                Defendant(s):          THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                Footnote (defendant
                name) 
                Third-party claimant
                (s)
                Third-party defendant
                (s)
                Claim number(s):       122313
                Motion number(s):      M-84067, CM-84284, M-84396
                Cross-motion number
                (s)
                Judge:                 Terry Jane Ruderman
                                       NIKO WILLER
                Claimant's attorney:
                                       Pro Se
                                       HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
                Defendant's attorney:  Attorney General for the State of New York
                                       By: Terrance K. DeRosa, Assistant Attorney General
                Third-party
                defendant's attorney:
                Signature date:        February 7, 2014
                City:                  White Plains
                Comments:
                Official citation:
                Appellate results:
                See also
                (multicaptioned case)
                 

Decision

The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for summary judgment (M-84067), defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (CM-84284) and claimant's motion to dismiss defendant's cross-motion (M-84396):

Claimant's Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits (M-84067)............................................................................1

Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses and Exhibit............................................................................2

Defendant's Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney's Affirmation and Exhibits, Memorandum of Law................................................................................................3

Claimant's Notice of Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Cross-Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits (M-84284).........................................................4

Claimant seeks summary judgment on his claim of wrongful excessive confinement in keeplock from November 8, 2011 until February 2, 2012. On January 31, 2012, the hearing officer's determination was administratively reversed² and claimant's records were expunged (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Ex. D).

Claimant argues that "the hearing officer just outright denied claimant's witnesses" in violation of 7 NYCRR 254.5 (a) which permits an inmate to call witnesses on his behalf (Claimant's Affidavit Supporting his Summary Judgment Motion, ¶ 6). Claimant also argues that defendant violated 7 NYCRR 251-3.1 (c) (3) because the misbehavior report failed to provide the date, time and place of the incident (id.). Defendant opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Claimant then moved to dismiss defendant's cross-motion.

The quasi-judicial acts of correction employees made in furtherance of authorized disciplinary measures are entitled to absolute immunity (see Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212 [1988]). The mere fact that the disciplinary charges were ultimately dismissed does not give rise to a cognizable cause of action absent proof that defendant acted inconsistently with its own rules and regulations (see Arteaga, 72 NY2d 212; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 406 [Ct Cl 1986]). While defendant's failure to follow its own rules and regulations removes the cloak of absolute immunity, it does not establish claimant's entitlement to absolute liability (see Kilpatrick v State of New York, UID No. 2001-013-031 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Dec. 2001]; Moreno v State of New York, UID 2001-007-551 [Ct Cl, Bell, J., April 5, 2001]). Rather, claimant must further establish the merits of his claim.

Contrary to claimant's arguments, the misbehavior report did provide the date, time and place along with the rule violated and a brief description (Defendant's Cross-Motion, Ex. G). Also, the hearing record sheet indicates that the two witnesses requested by claimant: (1) Correction Officer Ortiz, who reported the incident and signed the misbehavior report, and (2) a technician from the manufacturer of the urinalysis machine, were called and testified at the hearing (Defendan...