Opinion
# 2012-039-349 Claim No. 106017
12-24-2012
CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Following a unified trial on the issue of liability and damages, the Court finds that claimant proved by a preponderance of the evidence his bailment claim against defendant. The evidence established that claimant ordered hobby shop materials that were delivered into the possession of the State and were not returned to him. The Court awards damages in the amount of $35.15 plus appropriate interest. Case information
UID: 2012-039-349 Claimant(s): CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS Claimant short name: EDWARDS Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 106017 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: James H. Ferreira Claimant's attorney: Christopher Edwards, pro se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Glenn C. King Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: December 24, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
On May 3, 2002, claimant Christopher Edwards, then an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims.Claimant seeks to recover damages for the State's alleged loss of hobby supplies that he had ordered from an arts and crafts vendor which allegedly had been delivered to the Eastern Correctional Facility where he was an inmate. A unified trial on the issues of both liability and damages was conducted on October 17, 2012 at the New York State Court of Claims in Albany, New York. Claimant testified on his own behalf and submitted several documentary exhibits in support of his claim, which were received into evidence without objection. Defendant called no witnesses and offered no evidence at trial.
In a Decision and Order dated March 5, 2003, the Court (Sise, P.J.) denied claimant's motion for summary judgment on the claim (see Edwards v State of New York, UID No. 2003-028-517 [Ct Cl, Sise, P.J., Mar. 5, 2003]). In a subsequent Decision and Order, dated June 6, 2007, the Court (Lack, J.) denied claimant's motion to find the defendant in default and enter judgment on his behalf. The claim was transferred to the individual assignment calendar of the undersigned on April 4, 2012.
At trial, claimant testified that this claim arose in 1999 while he was an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility. During his incarceration, he participated in an occupational therapy program, through which he was permitted to order various hobby supplies. He was issued a permit (# 607) to order such supplies in 1995 and thereafter had made "numerous orders" for hobby supplies, including plaques, clocks, leather and fabric.
Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are from the electronic audio recording of the trial.
The hobby shop at the facility was operated by Eastern Correctional Facility Recreational Supervisor/Hobby Shop Supervisor, Cheryl James. Claimant testified that, normally, the hobby supplies that he ordered would be delivered to the facility and would go directly to the package room, located in a separate part of the facility from the hobby shop. Ms. James would then proceed to the package room, verify that the order received was consistent with the inmate's purchase order and sign for the hobby shop order. Ms. James, or one of her clerks, would pick up the hobby supplies from the package room and take them back to the hobby shop. Ms. James would then "call you" to notify the inmate that a package was ready to be picked up. Claimant would then obtain a pass to allow him to pick up the order.
Claimant testified that, in December 1999, he ordered 12 wooden plaques which he intended to use to make grandfather clocks for his family for Christmas. About two weeks before Christmas, Ms. James made an announcement over the PA system that all inmates could come to the hobby shop to pick up their orders. Claimant testified that on a Wednesday or Thursday before Christmas, "she called me down to pick up my package." When he arrived at he hobby shop to pick up his order of the 12 plaques, the plaques were not there. Ms. James told him "Chris, I don't have yours" but told him he "could come down in the morning and pick my package up." The next morning, "she called me down" but told him "I did not have time to get your package" and that she would call him when he could come back and pick it up. She never called claimant, however, and he did not hear anything else about his order before Christmas. In the first week of January, Ms. James made an announcement that anyone who did not get his hobby package before the holiday season could come pick it up. Claimant discovered that the plaques that he had ordered were not in the package shop. He followed up with Ms. James, and learned from her that they were not in the hobby shop. She went back to check the package room but the plaques were not there. Claimant thereafter filed an inmate property claim seeking reimbursement for the plaques, which was denied, and then commenced the instant action.
Claimant's cause of action sounds in negligent bailment. It is well settled that the State has a duty to secure an inmate's personal property, and that a claim in the nature of bailment may be brought by an inmate against the State (see Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906, 907 [1991]; Christian v State of New York, 21 Misc 3d 1128 [A] [Ct Cl 2008]; see also Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]).A bailment is created when personal property of one person (the bailor) is delivered into the possession of another (the bailee) with the understanding, either express or implied, that the property will be redelivered to the owner in the same condition (see generally Claflin v Meyer, 75 NY 260 [1878]). In order to establish a prima facie case of negligent bailment, a claimant is required to demonstrate that the property was delivered to defendant and that the property was not returned to him (see Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550, 550 [1977]; Mason v State of New York, UID No. 2012-049-107 [Ct Cl, Weinstein, J., Aug. 1, 2012]). Once claimant meets this burden, there arises a presumption of liability on the part of defendant, and the burden then shifts to the State to overcome that presumption (see Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d at 550; Spears v State of New York, UID No. 2011-044-009 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Oct. 25, 2011]). The measure of recovery when bailed property is not produced upon demand is the fair market value of the property, namely, the value of the original price less a reasonable rate of depreciation (see Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [1989]; see also Matter of Terranova v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 1089, 1097 [1982]["the measure of damages in a bailment of personal property is the difference in the fair market value thereof in its condition as delivered (to the bailee) versus its condition as returned"]). Upon application of these principles to the facts presented here, and after weighing the evidence proffered at trial, including the exhibits received into evidence, and considering the testimony and demeanor of claimant, the Court finds that claimant established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, his bailment claim against defendant.
Court of Claims Act § 10 (9) authorizes an inmate to commence an action in the Court of Claims to recover "damages for injury to or loss of personal property" once he or she has exhausted "the personal property claims administrative remedy established for inmates" (Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). The evidence before the Court establishes that claimant filed an inmate property claim before commencing this action. Although there is no evidence that claimant appealed from the denial of his claim (see e.g. Lopez v State of New York, UID No. 2012-048-508 [Ct Cl, Bruening, J., June 4, 2012];7 NYCRR 1700.3), the Court declines to dismiss this claim on the ground that claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before commencing this action, where defendant has not asserted this defense in its answer or otherwise (compare King v State of New York, UID No. 2009-030-005 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Mar. 11, 2009].
--------
Here, the Court finds claimant's testimony to be particularly credible and concludes that his testimony, coupled with the documentary evidence that he submitted, is sufficient to establish his entitlement to the relief sought. Specifically, there is evidence establishing that the 12 plaques that claimant ordered were delivered into the possession of defendant and were not returned to him. Claimant testified in detail how the hobby supplies, which he regularly ordered, were delivered to the package room of the facility. He also described with specificity his interactions regarding his order with Ms. James in December 1999 and January 2000, which the Court finds reasonably supports claimant's contention that his plaques were delivered to the facility and were thereafter lost or misplaced.
Among the documentary evidence submitted by claimant is an invoice from a Wisconsin company indicating that claimant ordered 12 plaques, along with one package of tagboard, from the company to be shipped to him at the Eastern Correctional Facility (Claimant's Ex. 1). Although the invoice is dated December 14, 2000, the Court finds that the invoice provides some indicia of the value of the 12 plaques at issue in this lawsuit. In that invoice, the 12 plaques were valued at $3.18 each. Taking into account that the incident herein occurred a year earlier in December 1999, the Court estimates that a fair and reasonable value of those plaques to be $2.93 each.
Thus, based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that claimant has proven his bailment claim against defendant and awards damages in the amount of $35.16 plus appropriate interest from December 22, 1999. Any and all motions on which the Court may have previously reserved, or which were not previously determined, are hereby denied. To the extent claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
December 24, 2012
Albany, New York
James H. Ferreira
Judge of the Court of Claims