Opinion
# 2019-015-118 Claim No. 124575
02-22-2019
SHAWN ROBERTS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Shawn Roberts, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Damages were awarded following trial for pro se inmate's claim alleging damages for the loss of certain personal property.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-015-118 |
| Claimant(s): | SHAWN ROBERTS |
| Claimant short name: | ROBERTS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124575 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | Shawn Roberts, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 22, 2019 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
This claim seeks damages for the loss of certain of the claimant's personal property. Trial of this matter was conducted by video teleconference on January 10, 2019.
Claimant testified that on September 23, 2013 his property was packed into four bags prior to his transfer from Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow) to Green Haven Correctional Facility (Green Haven). The next day at Green Haven three of the claimant's four bags arrived. The fourth bag was never received, and an institutional claim was filed seeking $1,022.50 for the loss of the claimant's property including a fan, radio-tape player and various other clothing and food items. Claimant's institutional claim was approved for $31.89, which was increased on appeal to $111.50 (Court's Exhibit 1).
Claimant's institutional claim form contains information as to the original cost, age, condition and depreciated value of each item of property listed. Claimant testified on cross-examination that all information he included on the form was typewritten, and that he was not aware who included the handwritten values for the age of each item as reflected on the claim form. Claimant testified that he did not have receipts for any of the items listed nor did he have "a clear recollection of the age of the items". Claimant referred to Court's Exhibit 2 (I-64 form) in testifying that he provided all receipts and permits in his possession to the claim officer at Green Haven.
Quotes are taken from the audio transcript of the trial unless otherwise noted. --------
The State as a bailee of an inmate's personal property owes a common law duty to secure the property in its possession (Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]; see also 7 NYCRR Part 1700). A rebuttable presumption of negligence arises where it is established that the property was delivered to the defendant with the understanding that it would be returned, and that the defendant failed to return the property or returned it in a damaged condition (7 NYCRR 1700.7 [b]; see also Tweedy v Bonnie Castle Yacht Basin, Inc., 73 AD3d 1455 [4th Dept 2010]; Ramirez v City of White Plains, 35 AD3d 698 [2d Dept 2006]; Feuer Hide & Skin Corp. v Kilmer, 81 AD2d 948 [3d Dept 1981]; Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]). Thereafter, the burden of coming forward with evidence demonstrating that the loss or damage to the property was not its fault is upon the defendant (7 NYCRR 1700.7 [b] [1]; Tweedy, 73 AD3d at 1456; State Farm Ins. Co. v Central Parking Sys., Inc., 18 AD3d 859, 860 [2d Dept 2005]; Feuer Hide & Skin Corp. at 949; Board of Educ. of Ellenville Cent. School v Herb's Dodge Sales & Serv., 79 AD2d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 1981]; Weinberg, 60 AD2d at 550).
The defendant does not dispute that one of the four bags of property claimant delivered to defendant's possession for shipment to his new facility was not received by him at that facility. Every item of personalty for which a claim is made was recorded on the 2064 form when the property was packed and delivered to the defendant for shipment (see defendant's Exhibit C). Inasmuch as no evidence was offered to rebut the presumption of negligence, an award for the value of the lost property is appropriate. With respect to the age and value of the property, however, claimant has submitted no receipts and has only a vague recollection as to their age. Accordingly, the Court has utilized DOCCS' depreciation guide (Exhibit B), where appropriate, to determine the value of each item of personalty on the date of the loss. The total sum awarded is computed as follows:
| ITEM | ORIGINAL COST | AGE OF ITEM | CONDITION OF ITEM | DEPRECIA-TION | AMOUNT AWARDED |
| Fan | $ 22.00 | 1-1/2 yr. | new | 25% | $ 16.50 |
| Lamp | $ 7.00 | 1-1/2 yr. | new | 25% | $ 5.25 |
| Radio-tape player (Sony) | $ 32.00 | 5 yrs. | new | 50% | $ 16.00 |
| Extension cord | $ 2.57 | 1 yr. | fair | 15% | $ 2.18 |
| Electric razor (Noroco) | $ 19.99 | 5 yrs. | good | 50% | $ 10.00 |
| Watch (Casio) | $ 49.99 | 1 yr. | new | 15% | $ 42.49 |
| Newport (20 packs) | $175.00 | 2 mos. | new | 0% | $175.00 |
| Tobacco Pouch (20 pouches) | $ 64.80 | 2 mos. | new | 0% | $ 64.80 |
| Soaps (20 bars) | $ 40.00 | 2 mos. | new | 0% | $ 40.00 |
| 2 Colgate toothpaste | $ 6.00 | 1 mo. | new | 0% | $ 6.00 |
| 100 scented oils | $100.00 | 2 mos. | new | 0% | $100.00 |
| Hot pot | $ 17.50 | 3 yrs. | good | 50% | $ 8.75 |
| 1 blanket | $ 22.00 | 1-1/2 yr. | good | 25% | $ 16.50 |
| 2 sheet sets | $ 44.00 | 1-1/2 yr. | good | 25% | $ 33.00 |
| 1 pair of boots | $ 50.00 | 1 yr. | new | 15% | $ 42.50 |
| 3 pairs of sneakers | $150.00 | 2 yrs. | good | 25% | $112.50 |
| 2 sweat pants | $ 36.00 | 2-1/2 yrs. | new | 50% | $ 18.00 |
| 2 sweat shirts | $ 66.00 | 2-1/2 yrs. | new | 50% | $ 33.00 |
| 16 cans of Jack Mack Salmon | $ 45.00 | unk | new | 0% | $ 45.00 |
| TOTAL | $787.47 |
Accordingly, claimant is awarded $787.47 with interest at the statutory rate from September 23, 2013. To the extent claimant paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
February 22, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims