Lakram v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lakram v. State

206 A.D.2d 568, 614 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 568 (Lakram v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lakram v. State, 206 A.D.2d 568, 614 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, Jr., J.), entered May 20, 1993, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this action claiming that he was wrongfully placed in keeplock pending a hearing on the disciplinary charges lodged against him. Not only did the misbehavior report warrant claimant’s confinement, but the actions by the employees of the facility involved discretionary decisions of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State is accorded absolute immunity. Claimant has failed to allege the deprivation of any specific due process rights which would overcome this immunity. To the extent that claimant is asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights, his remedy is not in the Court of Claims.

[569]*569Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Corbett, Jr., J.), entered May 20, 1993, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this action claiming that he was wrongfully placed in keeplock pending a hearing on the disciplinary charges lodged against him. Not only did the misbehavior report warrant claimant’s confinement, but the actions by the employees of the facility involved discretionary decisions of a quasi-judicial nature for which the State is accorded absolute immunity. Claimant has failed to allege the deprivation of any specific due process rights which would overcome this immunity. To the extent that claimant is asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights, his remedy is not in the Court of Claims.

[569]*569Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 568, 614 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakram-v-state-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack