| Thompson v State of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04891 [63 AD3d 825] |
| June 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nakia Thompson, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany, N.Y. (Peter H. Schiff and Robert M.Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries based, inter alia, on negligence in thesupervision of a corrections officer in a State prison, the claimant appeals from a judgment of theCourt of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated August 28, 2007, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favorof the defendant and against her, dismissing the claim.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant, then an inmate at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, allegedly wasstatutorily raped by a corrections officer several times in February 2002 and March 2002 (seePenal Law § 130.05 [3] [e]). The Department of Correctional Services InspectorGeneral's Office conducted an internal investigation. Although the investigation resulted in afinding that the allegation of an unauthorized relationship was substantiated, the allegation of asexual relationship was not substantiated. Following a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, theCourt of Claims determined that the State was not negligent and dismissed the claim. We affirm.
Upon review of a determination rendered after a nonjury trial, this Court's authority is asbroad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by thefacts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeingthe witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). The Court of Claims discredited the claimant's allegations thatshe engaged in a sexual relationship with the corrections officer. We discern no basis to disturbthe court's finding. "Face to face with living witnesses the original trier of the facts holds aposition of advantage from which appellate judges are excluded. In doubtful cases the exerciseof his [or her] power of observation often proves the most accurate method of ascertaining thetruth" (Boyd v Boyd, 252 NY 422, 429 [1930]). Since the only evidence introducedregarding the alleged sexual relationship was the testimony of the claimant and she was foundnot to be credible, the Court of Claims properly found that claimant had not met her burden anddismissed the complaint. Prudenti, P.J., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.