You are here: / / Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not...
,

Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Privileged

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims, finding that claimant’s confinement was not privileged.  Claimant had completed his sentence at the time of sentencing but he was held for a month:

…[I]n order to succeed on a claim of false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to show “that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged”… . The first three elements have undoubtedly been satisfied and, accordingly, the question distills to whether claimant’s confinement by DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] was privileged. The facts leading up to his detention are not in dispute and, after reviewing them, we agree with the Court of Claims that the confinement was not privileged.

Claimant was sentenced to a prison term as the result of his conviction and, “where a facially valid order issued by a court with proper jurisdiction directs confinement, that confinement is privileged” … . That being said, DOCCS was “‘conclusively bound’ by the terms of the sentence and commitment order,” which unambiguously directed that claimant be released after 1½ years of confinement … . DOCCS continued to confine claimant after that period had ended and, given the absence of any order that required it to do so, its actions were not privileged … . Miller v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00408, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

You might also like
People Failed to Demonstrate Seizure of Heroin from Defendant’s Impounded Vehicle Was Pursuant to a Standard Inventory Search—Heroin Should Have Been Suppressed
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), STATUTORY PROCESS LEADING TO IMMIGRATION DETERMINATION BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Grassy Area Where Plaintiff Fell Was Not Part of a Highway or a Sidewalk–Prior Written Notice of the Defect (to the Town) Not Required
THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE REPRESENTED DEFENDANT AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Company Exercised Sufficient Control Over “Agents” to Justify Finding They Were Employees
THE CLAIM DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF CLAIMANT’S SLIP AND FALL AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Waterway Bordered by Private Land Deemed “Navigable-in-Fact”—Owners... Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s Witnesses...