Opinion
127931
07-26-2018
Willie WILLIAMS, Claimant, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant.
For Claimant: Willie Williams, Pro Se For Defendant: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, By: Mark Sweeney, AAG
For Claimant: Willie Williams, Pro Se
For Defendant: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, By: Mark Sweeney, AAG
Faviola A. Soto, J.
Claimant, an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility ("Sullivan"), brings this claim seeking damages for defendant's alleged confiscation and destruction of his personal property. A trial was held on June 28, 2018 using video conference technology.
FACTS
The trial testimony revealed the following uncontested facts. On January 19, 2016, Officer Kurtis Holzapfel conducted a routine cell search of claimant's cell in A-North Block at Sullivan. Claimant was present during the search. Officer Holzapfel discovered several contraband items, including an ice chest, an altered hot pot, a reversible leather belt, an AC adapter, and multiple trash bags. See Def. Ex. A. These items were confiscated and disposed of according to Sullivan's contraband protocol.
Claimant contends that, during the cell search, Officer Holzapfel also found 120 pages of legal documents relating to claimant's federal aid application and 53 photographs of claimant's family members. Claimant argues that the officer confiscated these items and never returned them. Claimant also noted that the legal documents were copies of documents that had already been submitted for his application. He further noted his federal aid hearing was completed prior to this trial and that he was not substantially prejudiced by not having his papers readily available.
Defendant called Officer Holzapfel as a witness. The officer denied confiscating any legal documents or photographs from claimant's cell.
ANALYSIS
The State has a duty to secure an inmate's personal property while such property is in the State's control. See Pollard v. State of New York , 173 A.D.2d 906, 569 N.Y.S.2d 770 (3d Dept. 1991). Here, claimant's personal property was in defendant's control during the cell search on January 19, 2016. Defendant had the authority to confiscate and dispose of the contraband items noted on the contraband receipt. See Def. Ex. A. However, if it is true that defendant confiscated non-contraband items (legal documents and photographs), then defendant was obligated to return them to claimant.
A critical component in the fact finding process is assessing each witness' credibility. It is the province of the Court as the trier of fact to resolve issues of credibility and determine the likelihood of a fact being true. See Shirvanion v. State of New York , 64 A.D.3d 1113, 883 N.Y.S.2d 639 (3d Dept. 2009). "The fact-finder...should assess the likelihood of a fact being true by the totality of circumstances surrounding the occurrence as well as by the ordinary laws that govern human conduct." See Medina v. State of New York , UID No. 2007-028-010, 2007 WL 1775336 (Ct. Cl., Sise, P. J., Mar. 2, 2007) (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.).
After watching claimant and Officer Holzapfel testify at trial, the Court finds that claimant's testimony is credible and the officer's testimony is not credible. Officer Holzapfel admitted that he has "tons" of complaints against him for confiscating inmates' personal property. Further, Officer Holzapfel appeared agitated while claimant cross-examined him. Based on the tone of his testimony and his appearance at trial, the Court believes that claimant's pictures were maliciously taken by Officer Holzapfel.
Personally meaningful items such as photographs have no fair market value. Thus, in situations like this, courts have awarded their "intrinsic value" as damages. See Bolling v. State of New York , UID. No. 2017-044-002 (Ct. Cl., Schaewe, J., January 30, 2017) (Court awarded an inmate one dollar per photograph for 200 family photographs lost by defendant). Regrettably, this Court is bound by precedent and can only award one dollar per lost photograph. Additionally, since claimant was not prejudiced at his federal aid hearing by not having his legal documents available to him, the Court will not award damages for the loss of those documents.
CONCLUSION
Based on claimant's credible testimony, this Court finds Officer Holzapfel maliciously took 53 family photographs from claimant during a cell search on January 19, 2016. Accordingly, claimant is awarded the sum of $53.00, with interest accruing at the statutory rate from January 19, 2016, the date of loss.
To the extent claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to the Court of Claims Act § 11(2).
Let judgment be entered accordingly.