Opinion
# 2017-038-106 Claim No. 120147
04-10-2017
SCOTT YOUNG v. STATE OF NEW YORK
SCOTT YOUNG, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, By: Thomas Monjeau, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2017-038-106 |
| Claimant(s): | SCOTT YOUNG |
| Claimant short name: | YOUNG |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120147 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | SCOTT YOUNG, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York, By: Thomas Monjeau, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 10, 2017 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Caption amended to reflect the properly named defendant.
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a State correctional facility, filed this claim seeking compensation for lost personal items and legal papers. The trial of this claim was conducted by videoconference on February 9, 2017, with the parties appearing at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF) in Malone, New York and the Court sitting in Saratoga Springs, New York. Claimant presented his own testimony; defendant presented the testimony of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Lieutenant Daniel King. Claimant offered twenty-five exhibits that were received into evidence; defendant offered one exhibit that was received into evidence. After listening to the witnesses testify and observing their demeanor as they did so, 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 $365.36.
FACTS
Claimant testified that when he was transferred from Eastern CF to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Upstate CF on May 22, 2010, all of his personal property including photographs was packed into four personal property bags, and a fifth bag contained his legal papers. Claimant testified that he was permitted to bring only three personal property bags and his legal work bag on the bus with him to Upstate CF and that he had to send one of the four personal property bags by mail. Claimant testified that when he was released from Upstate CF SHU and transferred to the Inmate Cadre Unit at Upstate CF on August 25, 2010, he noticed that there were several rips, holes and tears in the three bags containing his personal property. On August 27, 2010, while he was still at Upstate CF, all of his personal property was placed on a table and he discovered that a number of items of personal property, photographs and legal papers were missing. He informed a correction officer (CO) that items were missing and was told to file a claim. Claimant testified that all of the property that was lost, including his legal papers, was contained within the four personal property bags, and not the legal work bag.
A Personal Property Transferred (I-64) Form that reflects that four bags contained claimant's clothes and a wide variety of other personal items, including photographs, but no legal papers (see Claimant's Exhibit 6). A separate I-64 form lists only one bag that contained solely legal papers (see Claimant's Exhibit 7B). Claimant's Exhibit 6 bears claimant's signature and is dated May 22, 2010, the date on which the bags were packed at Eastern CF. The section at the bottom of the form where it would indicate when the bags were received at Upstate CF and contain the signature of the CO who checked the bags along with claimant's signature acknowledging receipt of the bags is blank (see Claimant's Exhibit 6). Lt. King testified that when property is received by an inmate, the CO handing over the property and the inmate are both required to sign the I-64 form. Lt. King testified that if an inmate refuses to sign the I-64 acknowledging receipt, the CO is required to indicate on the form that the inmate refused. Claimant testified that when he received his property on August 27, 2010 at Upstate CF, neither he nor the CO who handed over the bags signed the I-64 acknowledging receipt of the bags. The I-64 form for the bag containing his papers was signed by claimant when the bag was packed at Eastern CF on May 22, 2010 and when he received the bag on June 26, 2010 at Upstate CF (see Claimant's Exhibit 7B).
Claimant filed an administrative claim seeking recovery in the amount of $1,158.50 for three pairs of footwear, photographs, legal papers (consisting of trial transcripts, legal work and a marriage certificate), an AM/FM cassette player, a pair of headphones, a blanket, a beard trimmer, a watch, a hot pot, one pair of eyeglasses, a lamp, a fan, food and nutritional supplements, and toiletries (see Claimant's Exhibit 1 [Part 2]). The administrative claim was disapproved on March 8, 2011 on the grounds that "all property that was packed at Eastern [CF] was received at Upstate [CF] as evidenced by claimant[']s signature on the I64. The [indecipherable] bag of legal was received on 6/25/10 [sic] and claimant signed for it" (id. [Part 3]). Claimant appealed the disapproval of his administrative claim on April 5, 2011, indicating that he requested through the Freedom of Information Law copies of the I-64 "which have not been produced to prove [claimant] signed and received property" (id. [Part 4]). Claimant's appeal was subsequently disapproved on June 3, 2011 (id. [Part 5]).
Lt. King testified that he investigated claimant's lost property claim and determined that claimant had received all of the property that was contained within the personal property bags. Lt. King testified that he compared the I-64 form that was executed at Eastern CF (Claimant's Exhibit 6) with the I-64 form that was purportedly created to inventory claimant's property when he was transferred from the Upstate CF SHU to the Inmate Cadre Unit (see Defendant's Exhibit A), and he discovered no discrepancies between the property inventoried on the two forms. The copy of the I-64 that Lt. King relied upon appears to be an exact photocopy of the I-64 form created at Eastern CF, except that the number 10 is circled at the top of the form, which Lt. King testified indicated that claimant was being transferred from "10 Building" at Upstate CF (see id.). A significant portion of the bottom of the form is missing, and was apparently cut off during photocopying (see id.). Lt. King testified that although he interviewed claimant, the I-64 forms were "the only thing he had to go with" in making his findings that no property was missing.
At the time of the investigation Lt. King held the rank of sergeant.
Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are to the audio recording of the trial of 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 credibly testified that he packed his personal items into four personal property bags and his legal papers into another bag at Eastern CF prior to his transfer to Upstate CF, as corroborated by the I-64 forms in evidence, and that the items were not returned to him. However, claimant testified that items were missing from the personal property bags and not the legal work bag, but he did not testify or argue that any items were left off the I-64 form at Eastern CF or that officials at Eastern CF did not properly document his property. Thus, inasmuch as claimant's Exhibit 6 does not indicate that certain items - his legal papers (including his trial transcripts, legal work and marriage certificate), blanket, watch and hot pot - were packed in the four personal property bags, the preponderance of the credible evidence does not establish that those items were packed in those four bags, and claimant has not made a prima facie showing of negligent bailment with regard to those items. However, claimant has made out a prima facie case of negligent bailment with respect to the remaining items on his administrative claim (see Claimant's Exhibit 1), and the burden has therefore shifted to defendant to rebut claimant's case.
Defendant offered Lt. King's testimony that because the property inventoried on the I-64 form executed at Eastern CF matched the property listed on the I-64 form purportedly created prior to claimant's transfer from Upstate CF SHU to the Inmate Cadre Unit, no property was missing. However, it is clear that the I-64 form that was purportedly created at Upstate CF was merely a photocopy of the I-64 form executed at Eastern CF, and it bears no indicia that the property was actually checked by Upstate CF staff prior to claimant's transfer to the Inmate Cadre Unit. Importantly, the form contains no indication of when and by whom the property was checked at Upstate CF. Although Lt. King testified that the number 10 at the top of the form was a reference to the property being inventoried at 10 Building, that notation alone is not persuasive evidence that the property was indeed checked by Upstate CF officials and that they concluded that all of the property that was packed into the bags at Eastern CF had followed claimant to the Inmate Cadre Unit. Accordingly, defendant has failed to rebut claimant's prima facie case of negligent bailment, and the Court finds that defendant is liable to claimant for his lost property.
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 credible testimony reasonably reflects the condition of his personal property at the time of their loss or damage, and the dates on which the items were purchased and the amounts paid for them is demonstrated by receipts as identified below, and defendant has not persuasively refuted any of claimant's proof. Therefore, the Court finds that claimant proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence the fair market value of the following items that are recited in the administrative claim, and claimant's loss is valued as follows:
(1) three pairs of running shoes that are documented in claimant's Exhibit 8, with a total fair market value of $163.00, all of which were approximately one year old in new condition, having been only worn one time each; the Court assigns a depreciation of 10% and values the loss at $146.70;
The administrative claim sought only $150.00 for all three pairs of running shoes, but the fair market value for the shoes is actually $163.00 (see Claimant's Exhibit 8).
(2) Nine personal photographs that claimant had reproduced within the previous year, at a cost of $27.15, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 10, all of which were in new condition; the Court determines that it is appropriate to reimburse claimant the full cost of reproduction in the amount of $27.15 (see Powell v State of New York, UID No. 2016-015-615 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Aug. 16, 2016] [award of reproduction costs]; Davies v State of New York, UID No. 2014-039-410 [Ct Cl, Ferreira, J., May 23, 2014] [same]);
(3) one Clear Tech AM/FM Cassette Player that was documented in claimant's Exhibit 14, with a total fair market value of $28.75, that was approximately two years old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $23.00;
(4) one pair of Koss headphones that was documented in claimant's Exhibit 15, with a total fair market value of $14.55, that was approximately two years old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $11.64;
(5) one beard trimmer, with a total fair market value of $28.00, that was approximately two years old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $22.40;
Although claimant could not produce a receipt to document the value of the beard trimmer, claimant credibly testified as to its value.
(6) one pair of eyeglasses that was documented in claimant's Exhibit 20, with a total fair market value of $50.00, that was approximately four years old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 40% and values the loss at $30.00;
(7) one lamp with a total fair market value of $7.54, that was approximately two years old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 20% and values the loss at $6.03;
Although claimant could not produce a receipt to document the value of the lamp, claimant credibly testified as to its value.
(8) one fan that was documented in claimant's Exhibit 22, with a total fair market value of $7.62, that was approximately one year old in "mint" condition; the Court assigns a depreciation of 10% and values the loss at $6.86;
(9) fourteen unopened cans of mackerel, purchased at $1.19 each, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $16.66;
(10) four unopened cans of creatine powder, purchased at $3.15 each, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $12.60;
(11) one unopened can of protein powder, purchased at $5.24, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $5.24;
(12) forty-eight unopened bars of soap, purchased at $32.80, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $32.80;
(13) ten unopened sticks of deodorant, purchased at $10.77, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $10.77;
(14) ten tubes of toothpaste, purchased at $10.90, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $10.90;
(15) three jars of petroleum jelly, purchased at $2.61, as documented in claimant's Exhibit 22; the Court assigns no depreciation and values the loss at $2.61.
Although claimant seeks compensation for eight units of petroleum jelly, only three units of "Vasaline" [sic] are noted on the I-64 (Claimant's Exhibit 6), so recovery will be had as to only those items. --------
Claimant seeks recovery for 225 family photographs which undoubtedly have sentimental value, and notwithstanding that claimant has assigned them each a value of $3.00, such items have no fair market value upon which an award can be made in a bailment claim (see Encarnacion v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-111 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Sept. 27, 2012]; Kidd v State of New York, UID No. 2004-030-044 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Nov. 22, 2004]).
CONCLUSION
Defendant is liable to claimant for lost property in the amount of $365.36, with statutory interest from August 27, 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.
April 10, 2017
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims