Opinion
# 2013-009-104 Claim No. 110646
10-16-2013
LANCE STEWARTSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant was awarded the sum of $375.49 in this inmate pro se bailment claim.
Case information
UID: 2013-009-104 Claimant(s): LANCE STEWARTSON Claimant short STEWARTSON name: Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the (defendant name) State of New York as the only proper defendant before this : Court. Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 110646 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. Claimant's LANCE STEWARTSON, PRO SE attorney: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General Defendant's attorney: BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq., Senior Attorney Of Counsel. Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: October 16, 2013 City: Syracuse Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
In this claim, claimant, an inmate under the care and custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, seeks damages for the loss of certain items of his personal property which allegedly occurred when he was placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Marcy Correctional Facility (Marcy) on or about June 23, 2004. Claimant has valued the loss of these items, as set forth in his "Inmate Claim Form" attached to and made a part of his claim, in the amount of $459.36. The trial of this claim, at which claimant was the only witness to testify, was held at Marcy on August 13, 2013 utilizing video conferencing technology.
Claimant testified that on June 23, 2004, he was called to the sergeant's office at Marcy for questioning regarding a prior incident at the facility. He testified that from the sergeant's office he was then immediately escorted to the medical clinic, and from the clinic he was taken directly to SHU. He testified that he therefore never had an opportunity to secure or pack his items of personal property before he was taken to SHU.
As set forth in his claim, his administrative claim, and his testimony, claimant contends that he lost numerous items of personal property. These items are specifically listed on his administrative "Inmate Claim Form" attached to and made a part of his claim, and consist of an electric shaver, 15 cassette tapes, a silver chain, two pairs of sneakers, an Army jacket, five long sleeve shirts, three sweatsuits, four pair of Bermuda shorts, one set of headphones, an AM/FM radio, a lamp, fan, and hotpot.
Claimant alleges that the officers at Marcy Correctional Facility failed to follow proper procedures in securing his property and therefore are liable for his loss.
Under cross-examination, defendant's attorney made reference to claimant's administrative claim, which was denied on the basis that certain items (cassettes, shirts, radio and shorts) appeared on a subsequently dated personal property form (I-64), and that claimant had not provided proof of ownership for the remaining items.
As a bailee of property, the State has a duty to secure an inmate's personal property, and therefore an inmate may assert a negligence claim against the State sounding in bailment (Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]). In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a claimant must establish that the property was delivered to the defendant, and that the defendant failed to return it, or returned it in a damaged condition (Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]). The defendant's refusal or inability to return the bailed items on demand creates a presumption of negligence, and the burden shifts to the defendant, which must then come forward with proof to overcome this presumption (id.; Alston v State of New York, 9 Misc 3d 1126[A], 2005 NY Slip op 51796[U] [Ct Cl 2005]).
In this particular matter, and based upon the testimony of the claimant and the documentary evidence included with his claim, the court hereby finds that claimant did own and possess the missing items of property (as set forth on his administrative claim) prior to his transfer to SHU on June 23, 2004. The court further finds that the State failed to take appropriate steps to adequately protect and secure claimant's property when facility officials decided to immediately transfer claimant to SHU. As defendant provided no explanation for its failure to return claimant's property, the court finds that defendant is liable for the loss of claimant's personal property as set forth in his claim and administrative claim.
With respect to value, claimant has the burden to satisfy the court as to the fair market value of the items in question (Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [4th Dept 1989]; Schaffner v Pierce, 75 Misc 2d 21 [NY Dist Ct 1973]). Fair market value is determined by taking the value of the original purchase price, and applying a reasonable rate of depreciation (see e.g.Phillips 155 AD2d at 867). At trial, claimant relied upon those values set forth on his administrative claim form.
The court notes that in his administrative claim, claimant had listed both an original cost for each specific item, as well as a "reimbursement requested" amount which presumably took into account claimant's own estimate of depreciation. On this form, claimant also indicated that the items were either in "good" or "new" condition, and that they were of anywhere from eight months to one year in age.
After carefully reviewing the list of missing items set forth in claimant's administrative claim, and taking into consideration the age of those items as estimated by claimant, the court finds that claimant did not sufficiently depreciate the value of those items, and therefore the amount requested by claimant must be adjusted. The court finds that an additional 20% depreciation must be factored into the amount requested by claimant. Therefore, after application of the 20% depreciation to the amount requested by claimant of $469.36 , the court hereby awards claimant the sum of $375.49 for his missing items of personal property. This award shall carry appropriate interest from June 23, 2004 to the date of this decision, and thereafter to the date of entry of judgment herein.
Although claimant submitted a claim seeking reimbursement of $459.36, the total amount requested, based upon the amounts set forth by claimant and the Court's computation, is $469.36.
To the extent that claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
October 16, 2013
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims