McMillan v. State

New York Court of Appeals

McMillan v. State

528 N.E.2d 508, 72 N.Y.2d 871, 532 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1651

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 528 N.E.2d 508 (McMillan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMillan v. State, 528 N.E.2d 508, 72 N.Y.2d 871, 532 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1651 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Claimant, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this action to recover damages for allegedly wrongful confinement in a special housing unit following his refusal to accept a work assignment. The only issue we need consider on this appeal is claimant’s argument that he is entitled to recover damages on a common-law tort theory of false imprisonment or wrongful excessive confinement because he was confined in a special housing unit in violation of the State’s *872 own regulations (cf., Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212). However, because this argument was raised for the first time at the Appellate Division, it is unpreserved for our review.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Claimant, an inmate at a State correctional facility, commenced this action to recover damages for allegedly wrongful confinement in a special housing unit following his refusal to accept a work assignment. The only issue we need consider on this appeal is claimant’s argument that he is entitled to recover damages on a common-law tort theory of false imprisonment or wrongful excessive confinement because he was confined in a special housing unit in violation of the State’s *872 own regulations (cf., Arteaga v State of New York, 72 NY2d 212). However, because this argument was raised for the first time at the Appellate Division, it is unpreserved for our review.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 N.E.2d 508, 72 N.Y.2d 871, 532 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmillan-v-state-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack