| Jackson v Buffardi |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07723 [66 AD3d 1297] |
| October 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Brent Jackson, Appellant, v Harry C. Buffardi, SchenectadyCounty Sheriff, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney & Laird, P.C., Albany (James A. Resila ofcounsel), for Harry C. Bufardi, Schenectady County Sheriff, and another, respondents. Roche, Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, Albany (Robert P. Roche of counsel), for Albany Countyand another, respondents.
Rose, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kramer, J.), entered August 7, 2008 inSchenectady County, which, among other things, granted defendants' motions for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint.
Plaintiff was arrested on federal drug charges in January 2001 and confined as a federaldetainee in the Schenectady County Jail. While confined there, plaintiff also was prosecuted inAlbany County on a state drug charge. He pleaded guilty to the state charge and was sentencedon March 14, 2003. A few days later, the federal charges were dismissed. Plaintiff was thenreleased from the Schenectady County Jail, transferred to Albany County due to his convictionthere and confined in the Albany County Jail until his transfer to state prison on April 1, 2003.While in state prison, plaintiff commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding and obtained ajudgment compelling defendant Schenectady County Sheriff to credit him with 794 days againsthis sentence for the time he had spent in the Schenectady County Jail. As a result of the creditedjail time, plaintiff was released from state prison on October 8, 2004. Nearly one year later, onOctober 3, 2005, plaintiff brought this action for damages alleging that defendants' failure tocertify the jail time sooner pursuant to Penal Law § 70.30 (3) caused him to be illegallyconfined [*2]in state prison for more than nine months beyondthe date he should have been released. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint, and Supreme Court granted the motions, prompting this appeal.
There is no need to explore the merits of plaintiff's claim beyond the threshold question ofwhether the action is timely. Plaintiff contends that his action asserts a claim of falseimprisonment and was timely commenced because the one-year limitations period applicable tohis claim did not begin to run until he was released from state prison (see CPLR 215 [1];Bumbury v City of New York, 62AD3d 621, 621-622 [2009]). Plaintiff's complaint, however, does not include any allegationthat the Schenectady County Sheriff and defendant Albany County Sheriff lacked authority toconfine him during the times he was in their custody, an element necessary to a falseimprisonment cause of action (see Holmberg v County of Albany, 291 AD2d 610, 612[2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 604 [2002]). Rather, plaintiff alleges only that the stateillegally confined him due to defendants' failure to report the time he spent in the SchenectadyCounty Jail as required by Correction Law § 600-a and Penal Law § 70.30 (3). Inother words, the complaint asserts that defendants' failure to perform a statutory duty caused himto be confined by the state for an additional nine months.
Viewed in this way, it is clear that plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue upon his releasefrom prison, but upon defendants' acts or omissions (see CPLR 215 [1]; Meyer v Onondaga County, 30 AD3d1002, 1002-1003 [2006]; Nichols v County of Rensselaer, 129 AD2d 167, 170[1987]; Kingston v Braun, 122 AD2d 543 [1986]). Defendants were statutorily requiredto certify plaintiff's jail time on or about April 1, 2003, when he was sent to state prison. Thus,plaintiff's claim accrued on that date. Even if the claim did not arise until he suffered someinjury, it would have accrued when he was imprisoned beyond his proper release date, which healleges was approximately nine months prior to his release from prison. Regardless of which ofthese accrual dates is used, plaintiff's claim is barred by the one-year statute of limitationsbecause he did not commence this action until October 3, 2005. Similarly, any claim againstdefendants Albany County and Schenectady County based on their sheriffs' omissions wouldalso be time-barred by the one-year-and-90-day limitations period provided in GeneralMunicipal Law § 50-i (1). Accordingly, Supreme Court did not err in dismissing plaintiff'scomplaint.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.