| Orellanes v State of New York |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07860 [78 AD3d 1308] |
| November 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Jonathan Orellanes, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Michael S. Buskus of counsel), forrespondent.
Kavanagh, J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered July 17, 2009,which, among other things, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.
Claimant pleaded guilty to the crimes of robbery in the second degree (three counts) and robberyin the third degree and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of five years. While the sentencingcourt did not impose the required term of postrelease supervision (see Penal Law §70.45), the sentence and commitment order for the second degree robbery counts indicated that such aprovision had been included in claimant's sentence. After claimant was released from prison, he wasplaced on postrelease supervision and was again incarcerated when, during that period, he wasarrested for violating the terms of his supervision. When the sentencing court learned that it had, in fact,not included a term of postrelease supervision in claimant's original sentence, it imposed a new sentencethat did not require a period of postrelease supervision and claimant was released from custody.
Claimant then commenced this action alleging that his confinement for violating the terms ofpostrelease supervision constituted negligence, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment andmalicious prosecution. Following joinder of issue, the Court of Claims granted defendant's motion forsummary judgment dismissing the claim. Claimant now appeals only the dismissal of his cause of actionbased on false imprisonment, arguing that he has properly stated all of the elements of this claim and thecourt erred in granting defendant's motion [*2]for summary judgment.
The claim was properly dismissed because defendant's decision to place claimant on postreleasesupervision, while not part of his pronounced sentence, was privileged (see Nazario v State of New York, 75AD3d 715, 718 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 712,[2010]; Carollo v State of New York, 75 AD3d736, 737 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 711, [2010]).[FN*]The order setting forth claimant's sentence and mandating his commitment was completed by thesentencing court and filed with the Department of Correctional Services. It indicated that a term ofpostrelease supervision was part of claimant's sentence and the Department was obligated to placeclaimant on postrelease supervision to insure that it fully complied with this order (see Matter of Garner v New York State Dept.of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 362 [2008]; Matter of Murray v Goord, 1 NY3d 29, 32 [2003]; Matter of LaRocco v Goord, 43 AD3d500, 501 [2007]). Accordingly, claimant's false imprisonment claim was properly dismissed.
Spain, J.P., Rose, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.
Footnote *: We recognize that our affirmance isbased upon a ground different from that relied upon by the Court of Claims (see Parochial Bus Sys.v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]).