Calendar Date: June 8, 2018Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.__________Joshua G. Stegemann, Berlin, New Hampshire, appellantpro se.Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, Albany (JonathanHitsous of counsel), for respondent.__________McCarthy, J.P.Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.),entered January 17, 2017, which, among other things, granteddefendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing theclaim.In 2013, various law enforcement officers from New York andMassachusetts executed two search warrants at claimant’sresidence where they seized a large quantity of contraband.After unsuccessfully challenging that search, claimant wasultimately convicted of federal drug trafficking and firearmoffenses and sentenced to 30 years in prison. That convictionwas affirmed (see United States v Stegemann, 701 Fed Appx 35, 40[2d Cir 2017], cert denied ___ US ___, 138 S Ct 412 [2017]).After receiving permission to file a late claim sounding inconversion, trespass and destruction of property, claimantcommenced this pro se action in the Court of Claims seekingcompensation for the damage caused to his property during theexecution of the search warrants.1Following joinder of issue,each party moved for summary judgment. The Court of Claimsdenied claimant’s motion, granted defendant’s cross motion anddismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.The portions of the claim sounding in conversion andtrespass were properly dismissed. To succeed on either theory,claimant would need to demonstrate that law enforcement actedwithout authority when it searched his residence and thesurrounding property (see East Schodack Fire Co., Inc. vMilkewicz, 140 AD3d 1255, 1256 [2016]; State of New York vJohnson, 45 AD3d 1016, 1019 [2007]). To that end, claimantargues that the search in question was illegal. This positioncontradicts the Federal District Court’s ruling in claimant’scriminal case denying his motion to suppress evidence acquiredduring that search and would, therefore, “necessarily imply theinvalidity of [the federal] conviction” grounded in that evidence(Heck v Humphrey, 512 US 477, 487 [1994]; accord Stegemann vRensselaer County Sheriff’s Off., 155 AD3d 1455, 1458 [2017]; cf.Britt v Legal Aid Socy., 95 NY2d 443, 447-448 [2000]).The Court of Claims also properly dismissed claimant’snegligent destruction of property claim. Specifically, claimantalleged that, over the course of their three-day search, lawenforcement officers “flagrantly exceeded the scope of thewarrant, excavating the grounds” and destroying “[t]he interiorof the residence” by tearing down ceilings and walls. Initially,this claim, unlike claimant’s trespass and conversion claims,does not turn upon the validity of the search itself, as even anotherwise lawful search can be conducted negligently (cf. UnitedStates v Ramirez, 523 US 65, 71 [1998]; Heck v Humphrey, 512 USat 487 n 7; Stegemann v Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Off., 155AD3d at 1458-1459). Nevertheless, defendant satisfied its primafacie burden on its cross motion for summary judgment byproffering the search warrants and the affidavit of aninvestigator involved with the search (see generally Zuckerman vCity of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]). Taken together,these documents demonstrate that law enforcement officers had theauthority to search claimant’s residence, to “utilize excavationequipment to check areas underground” and reason to believe thatclaimant was hiding contraband inside the walls of his residenceand underground in certain landscape features surrounding theresidence. In opposition to defendant’s cross motion, claimantfailed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether lawenforcement officers negligently destroyed his property duringtheir search of these areas (cf. United States v Ramirez, 523 USat 71-72; Dalia v United States, 441 US 238, 258 [1979]; UnitedStates v Mendoza, 817 F3d 695, 703 [10th Cir 2016]; Stegemann vRensselaer County Sheriff’s Off., 155 AD3d at 1459).We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions andsimilarly find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the Courtof Claims properly granted defendant’s cross motion for summaryjudgment.Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
