New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
CRITTLETON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-015-161, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-92369


Pro se inmate's motion to file a late claim alleging wrongful confinement was denied as untimely.

Case information

UID: 2018-015-161
Claimant(s): GESHAWN CRITTLETON, #92A5571
Claimant short name: CRITTLETON
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): NONE
Motion number(s): M-92369
Cross-motion number(s):
Claimant's attorney: Geshawn Crittleton, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General
By: Michael T. Krenrich, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 17, 2018
City: Saratoga Springs
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


Movant, proceeding pro se, seeks permission to file and serve a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10 (6).

Movant, an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), was charged in a misbehavior report with lewd conduct on December 28, 2016. In his proposed claim, movant alleges he was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and that a penalty of 180 days to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) was imposed on January 19, 2017. Movant appealed the determination and on March 13, 2017 the penalty was reduced to 90 days in the SHU with a loss of privileges for a commensurate period. Movant thereafter commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. On November 15, 2017, while the proceeding was pending, the hearing determination was administratively reversed.

Court of Claims Act 10 (6) permits, in the Court's discretion, the filing of a late claim against the State "before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of article two of the civil practice law and rules." Inasmuch as the proposed claim seeks to recover damages for wrongful confinement, a species of the tort of false imprisonment (Dubois v State of New York, 25 Misc 3d 1137 [Ct Cl 2009]; Gittens v State of New York, 132 Misc 2d 399, 407 [Ct Cl 1986]), the one-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 215 (3) applies.

A cause of action for wrongful confinement accrues on the date the confinement terminates (Johnson v State of New York, 95 AD3d 1455 [3d Dept 2012]; Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2011]). Here, although movant does not assert the date he was released from punitive confinement, he alleges he was found guilty following a disciplinary hearing that concluded on January 19, 2017, and that the penalty was reduced on March 13, 2017 to 90 days in the SHU with the loss of privileges for this same period. Consequently, movant's punitive confinement terminated on or about April 19, 2017, which is the date the claim accrued. As a result, the proposed claim for wrongful confinement was barred under the provisions of CPLR article two at the time movant's motion for leave to file and serve a late claim was filed on May 30, 2018.

Accordingly, movant's motion is denied.

September 17, 2018

Saratoga Springs, New York


Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of Motion, dated May 1, 2018;
  2. Affidavit in Support, sworn to May 1, 2018 with attachments;
  3. Affirmation in opposition, dated July 3, 2018, with Exhibit A.