Judge denies state’s motion to dismiss inmate lawsuit

A New York State Court of Claims judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by 33 inmates who claim they were terrorized by guards at Mid-State Correctional Facility in Oneida County.

The plaintiffs claim “they were brutalized and tormented by correction staff at the facility on July 6, 2016,” according to a decision from Judge Francis T. Collins.

The incident happened after a guard at the prison was injured “by what correction staff believed was an inmate striking him over the head with an unknown object,” according to the decision.

During a search for the “weapon” allegedly used in the assault, prison staff “raided” an area of the prison where the plaintiffs were housed, Collins wrote.

The inmates claim that “dozens of correction officers stormed the unit and “brutally assaulted and battered each of the claimants and intentionally destroyed the claimants’ personal property and possessions,” according to the decision.

Attorneys for the state filed a motion to dismiss the claim and the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment in their favor on their causes of action for assault and battery and intentional destruction of personal property.

“The raid was authorized by the prison superintendent and supervised by the highest level of prison management,” Collins wrote.

Lawyers for the state argued that, even if the plaintiff’s claims are accepted as true, the correction officers were “acting outside the scope of their employment,” according to the decision.

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees only if those acts were committed in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of employment,” Collins wrote.

“The test is not whether the employee was acting in an authorized manner but whether the act was done while the servant was doing his master’s work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions,” Collins wrote.

The attorneys for the state argued that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because it argues that the inmates were “brutalized without provocation or justification, and for no legitimate penological purpose.”

“Claimants established through the submission of documentary evidence that the use of force was authorized by the prison’s executive team to ‘send a message’ and to protect the ‘brotherhood’ of officers,” Collins wrote.

One officer testified that the raid was directed and supervised by the prison superintendent, the deputy superintendent and other officers.

After the shakedown, the superintendent and captains lauded the guards for doing a good job “despite the obvious upheaval caused by the search,” Collins wrote.

According to testimony by prison officers, the unit “frisk” was authorized and performed in the regular scope of the defendant’s business, according to the decision.

A deputy superintendent testified that the search “seemed like an angry search” and “overboard.”

Prison personnel were authorized to conduct the search and evidence shows that they may have done so in a manner condoned by the highest level of prison management, according to the decision.

“Since it has not been established that the injury-producing conduct relating to each of the 33 claimants could have been reasonably anticipated, summary determination at this stage would be inappropriate with respect to the alleged non-sexual assaults,” Collins wrote.

While some of the inmates claimed they were sexually assaulted by guards, those assaults were not committed in furtherance of an employer’s business, so those claims were dismissed, Collins ruled.

Collins denied a defense argument that the guards were not acting within the scope of their employment

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035