Opinion
# 2016-038-103 Claim No. 118678
02-05-2016
DEANDRE WILLIAMSv. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant found liable after trial for negligent bailment. Claimant's excess property was not shipped to claimant's home, although he offered postage stamps to pay for shipping. Damages awarded for books and comic books, no award made for legal documents in the absence of evidence that they were material to a pending or future proceeding and evidence of cost of replacement.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-103 |
| Claimant(s): | DEANDRE WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 118678 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 5, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim seeking compensation for lost personal items. The trial of this claim was conducted by videoconference on June 4, 2015, with claimant appearing at Five Points Correctional Facility (CF) in Romulus, New York, defendant appearing at Upstate CF in Malone, New York and the Court sitting in Saratoga Springs, New York. Claimant presented his own testimony; defendant offered no witnesses. Each party offered one exhibit, both of which were received into evidence. After listening to claimant's testimony and observing his demeanor as he testified, and upon consideration of that evidence and the documentary evidence received at trial and the applicable law, the Court concludes that defendant is liable to claimant in the amount of $109.15. FACTS
Claimant's testimony and the documents received at trial establish that claimant was directed to dispose of certain excess property, specifically books, comic books and legal documents. He was given options for the disposition of his property, including having a visitor come to the facility and claim the property or ship the property to his home. Claimant testified that since he did not get visitors, he wanted to ship the property home, but that he had insufficient funds in his account to pay for the shipping. He requested an advance to his inmate account under Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Directive 2788 III (A)(3), which provides in pertinent part that "[f]unds may be advanced for postage to send disallowed property home" (Defendant's Exhibit A [emphasis added]). Claimant had written letters informing defendant's agents that he had postage stamps that could be used to cover the cost of shipping his excess property (see e.g. Claimant's Exhibit 1, Exhibit A [Correspondence to Package Room Officer, dated March 4 and March 9, 2010]), and he testified that correction officials rebuffed his offer to use his postage stamps. Claimant's request for an advance was denied, and the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee (IGRC) responded to his inmate grievance about the denial by stating that the excess property did not "meet the reasons for an approved encumbrance for postage cost" and that claimant "will have to make another choice for disposal of the [excess property]" (id. [IGRC Response to Grievance UST-41859-10, dated March 9, 2010]).
Claimant's excess property was donated to the Upstate CF chaplain on May 7, 2010 (see id., Exhibit A-2 [Form 2068 Authorization for Disposal of Personal Property Form]; Exhibit B [Inmate Claim Form for Claim No. 840-0054-10]). Claimant filed an administrative claim seeking $3,140.79 in compensation for four books ($59.80), thirty-two comic books ($80.99), and two envelopes of legal documents ($3,000.00). The property claim was disapproved by the Institutional Steward on the ground that the items had been donated because claimant failed to exercise an option for disposing of his excess property (see id. [Inmate Claim Form for Claim No. 840-0054-10]). Claimant's administrative appeal of the denial of his property claim was denied (see id.), prompting claimant to file this claim.
DISCUSSION
The State has a bailee's common-law duty to secure the property of inmates within the State's prison system, and it may be liable for failing to carry out that duty (see Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]). To establish a prima facie case of negligent bailment, an inmate claimant must establish that his or her personal property was in the custody of facility officials and that the property was not delivered to claimant (see Gillard v State of New York, UID No. 2010-044-008 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., June 21, 2010], citing Mack v Davidson, 55 AD2d 1027 [4th Dept 1977]; see also Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]). A prima facie case creates a presumption of negligent bailment, and shifts to defendant the burden to demonstrate that the property was lost due to circumstances not within its control or that it exercised ordinary care (see Alston v State of New York, 9 Misc 3d 1126[A], *2-*3 [Ct Cl 2005]; Jackson v State of New York, UID No. 2007-044-010 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Mar. 22, 2007]).
At trial, claimant's credible testimony established the following. Claimant was required to dispose of certain items of property, and that he was required to either have a visitor pick up the property or ship it home. Claimant gave his excess property to defendant's agents, and sought an advance to his inmate account to pay for the shipping and offered postage stamps to cover the cost of the shipping. Claimant's advance request was denied and his offer to use his stamps for shipping was rebuffed. The evidence establishes that claimant's books and comic books were donated to the facility chaplain, and while there was no evidence as to the disposition of claimant's legal documents, the credible evidence establishes that they were not returned to him. Thus, claimant made a prima facie case of negligent bailment of his books, comic books, and legal documents, and shifted the burden of proof to defendant to demonstrate why it should not be found liable to claimant.
Defendant offered DOCCS Directive 2788 and argued that part III (A)(3) of the Directive does not require defendant to provide claimant with an advance for his postage, that the property was properly disposed of, and that defendant therefore should not be held liable. However, even if defendant was not required to advance funds for postage, claimant credibly testified that he had also offered to use postage stamps to pay for the shipping but that offer was rebuffed by defendant. Claimant was thereby deprived of an opportunity to ship his property home, resulting in the loss of his property. Defendant offered no evidence or argument that claimant did not possess sufficient postage stamps to cover the cost of the shipping, or that he otherwise would not have been permitted to use postage stamps to ship his items home. Therefore, defendant has failed to rebut claimant's prima facie case of negligent bailment.
Defendant's argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim because the matter should be addressed in a CPLR article 78 proceeding is unpersuasive. The claim clearly seeks to recover money damages for negligent bailment of claimant's property (cf. Madura v State of New York, 12 AD3d 759, 760 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 704 [2005]; see Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 236 [1988]). Although defendant's denial of claimant's advance request is part of the proof on the claim, the claim is not seeking review of defendant's administrative determination denying claimant an advance, but rather whether defendant was negligent in not returning his property to him (compare Hoffman v State of New York, 42 AD3d 641, 642 [2007] [claim dismissed because it primarily sought to annul Comptroller's determination to deduct unemployment benefits from back pay]). --------
The measure of compensation for bailed property that is not returned is its fair market value (see Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [4th Dept 1989]). "Receipts are the best evidence of fair market value, although uncontradicted testimony concerning replacement value may also be acceptable" (Rush v State of New York, UID No. 2007-030-019 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., June 18, 2007]). Claimant's testimony identifying the lost books and comics, the age and condition of those items and their fair market value by reference to the administrative claim was credible and uncontradicted. The Court finds those amounts to be reasonable valuations of those lost items, the approximate age and value of which were demonstrated by receipts appended to the claim (see Claimant's Exhibit 1, Exhibit A-2).
It is briefly noteworthy that the Authorization for Disposal of Personal Property form (Form 2068) that was completed in this matter indicates fewer lost items than was recited in claimant's administrative claim. However, "[w]hat is noted on the form [2068] is within the exclusive control of the State's agents, thus any omissions are chargeable to the defendant" (Zarvela v Sate of New York, UID No. 2007-030-045 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., [Nov. 29, 2007]), especially inasmuch as claimant did not sign the Form 2068. Thus, claimant's recovery in this action will not be limited to only those items reflected in the Form 2068.
Claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence the fair market value of the following items, and the Court values claimant's loss as follows:
(1) Two books documented in a receipt from Lushena Books, Inc., with a total fair market value of $29.90, which were twenty-two months old and in like-new condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $23.92;
(2) Six comic books documented in a receipt from www.mailordercomics.com, with a total fair market value of $29.62, all of which were four years old and in like-new condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 40% and values the loss at $17.77;
(3) One book documented in a receipt from Edward R. Hamilton Bookseller dated April 7, 2006, with a total fair market value of $12.95, which was four years old and in like-new condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 40% and values the loss at $7.77;
(4) One book documented in a receipt from Edward R. Hamilton Bookseller dated May 28, 2008, with a total fair market value of $16.95, which was two years old and in like-new condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $13.56;
(5) Twenty-six comic books documented in a receipt from Nostalgia Zone, with a total fair market value of $51.25, all of which were approximately one year old and in like-new condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 10% and values the loss at $46.13.
The only proof related to claimant's legal documents is found in his inmate claim form, which indicates only that he possessed 2 envelopes of legal documents (see id., Exhibit B). Claimant offered no testimony or other evidence that would demonstrate "how many pages were at issue, what these documents were, why they were of importance, or the impact of their loss [upon pending or future litigation]" (Encarnacion v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-111 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Sept. 27, 2012]). Thus, claimant has failed to establish the damages flowing from the loss of his legal documents, and no such award of damages will be made.
CONCLUSION
Defendant is liable to claimant in the amount of $109.15, with statutory interest from May 7, 2010. Any motions not previously ruled upon are denied. To the extent that claimant has paid a filing fee, it is recoverable pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).
The Clerk of the Court of Claims is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
February 5, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims