In Holloway v. State of New York (285 AD2d 765), claimant sought damages for an alleged wrongful confinement as a result of a disciplinary determination which was reversed based upon lack of compliance with a DOCS directive allowing inmates to observe all frisks under certain circumstances. The directive provides that an inmate be allowed to watch the search of his/her cell unless the inmate presents a danger to the safety and security of the facility. Claimant in Holloway (supra) asserted that the absolute immunity of Arteaga v. State of New York did not apply due to the correction officer's failure to comply with the relevant directive when frisking his cell (see Holloway v. State of New York, supra at 766). Judge Thomas McNamara dismissed the case and the Third Department affirmed, holding: "while the correction officers who frisked claimant's cell may have abused their discretion by not allowing him to observe the frisk, thereby providing the basis for this Court's judgment annulling the disciplinary determination, the correction officers conducting the frisk were nevertheless exercising a discretionary authority for which the State has absolute immunity (see, id., at 214)" ( Holloway v. State of New York, supra at 766).