Oppenheimer v. State of New York
152 A.D.3d 1006
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- On June 11, 2013, inmate Antonio Oppenheimer was stopped for a routine, nonemergency pat frisk by a female correction officer while wearing a kufi and asserting a religious prohibition on physical contact with women outside marriage.
- The frisk escalated; Oppenheimer received a misbehavior report for refusing a direct order and refusing a search, was held in prehearing confinement for 16 days, and after a tier II hearing was found guilty and given 30 days keeplock (total claimed confinement 46 days).
- The disciplinary disposition was later administratively reversed and expunged after Oppenheimer's CPLR article 78 challenge; that proceeding was dismissed as moot by this Court.
- Oppenheimer sued in the Court of Claims asserting federal and state free exercise claims, Correction Law § 610 (freedom of worship), and wrongful confinement for the total 46 days.
- The Court of Claims dismissed the federal and state constitutional free exercise and Correction Law § 610 claims, but denied defendant's motion as to wrongful confinement; defendant appealed and the Appellate Division reviewed the motions as summary judgment motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Correction Law § 610 claim may be brought in Court of Claims | Oppenheimer asserted a freedom of worship remedy under Correction Law § 610 in Court of Claims | § 610 actions must be brought in Supreme Court where statute assigns enforcement | Dismissed § 610 claim in Court of Claims; must be brought in Supreme Court |
| Whether federal § 1983 free exercise claim can be asserted in Court of Claims | Oppenheimer sought federal free exercise relief in Court of Claims | State is not a "person" under § 1983; Court of Claims is improper forum | Dismissed federal free exercise claim in Court of Claims |
| Whether state constitutional free exercise claim is maintainable in Court of Claims | Oppenheimer asserted state constitutional claim | State claim barred where alternative remedies exist (federal § 1983 or § 610 in Supreme Court) | Dismissed state constitutional claim for availability of alternative remedies |
| Whether prehearing confinement must be credited toward maximum disciplinary penalty (wrongful confinement) | Oppenheimer argued total 46 days was unlawful because prehearing confinement should count against penalty | Department regulations do not require crediting prehearing confinement toward post‑hearing penalty | Grant summary judgment to State; wrongful confinement claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (establishes that states are not "persons" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for suits in state courts)
- Brown v. State of New York, 89 N.Y.2d 172 (reaffirms that § 1983 claims cannot be asserted against the State in Court of Claims)
- Blake v. State of New York, 145 A.D.3d 1336 (Court of Appeals/Appellate Division precedent applying the § 1983 person rule)
- Deleon v. State of New York, 64 A.D.3d 840 (state constitutional claims barred when alternative remedies exist)
- Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78 (discusses availability of alternative remedies for constitutional claims)
- Jackson v. State of New York, 94 A.D.3d 1166 (addressing prima facie proof required to sustain wrongful confinement claim)
- Davis v. State of New York, 262 A.D.2d 887 (prehearing confinement need not be credited toward disciplinary penalty)
- Melluzzo v. Goord, 250 A.D.2d 893 (same)
- Fama v. Mann, 196 A.D.2d 919 (same)