Opinion
# 2019-05-116 Claim No. 126159
02-19-2019
DE ANDRE WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DeAndre Williams, Pro Se Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General By: Christina Calabrese, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Pro se inmate failed to establish a bailment at trial as no proof was presented that claimant owned or possessed the items of personalty he claimed were lost or that they were delivered to the possession of the defendant but not returned.
Case information
| UID: | 2019-05-116 |
| Claimant(s): | DE ANDRE WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126159 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANCIS T. COLLINS |
| Claimant's attorney: | DeAndre Williams, 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 19, 2019 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The claim seeks damages for loss of certain of the claimant's personal property. Trial of this matter was conducted by video teleconference on January 10, 2019.
At trial the claimant testified that, as indicated in his claim, he was transferred from Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow) to Five Points Correctional Facility (Five Points) on January 9, 2015. Claimant testified that his personal property was packed in six bags and taken to the draft room at Great Meadow where correction officers informed him they did not have time to complete property inventory forms (I-64), and that his property would be sent to Five Points the following day. Claimant began to receive his property bags several days later but one bag containing books, magazines, legal papers, photographs, and sweatshirts was never received at Five Points.
On cross-examination claimant confirmed that he received five bags of his property following his arrival at Five Points but never received the sixth. He stated that he was unable to pay the cost of replacing the legal work lost and that he had no receipts, in particular with regard to the three sweatshirts allegedly lost, having lost the receipts during various transfers within the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. Finally, claimant testified that he was unsure how many magazines were actually contained in his lost bag of property, and that he believes the bag contained 10 to 15 magazines.
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). Here, claimant contends that following his transfer from Great Meadow to Five Points he received only five of the six draft bags he delivered to the defendant with the understanding that they would be returned. Attached to the claim is an administrative claim form indicating claimant sought reimbursement for the loss of his legal papers, photographs, personal clothes, a Tens Unit, a hearing aide, soap, lotion and deodorant, state clothes, cigarettes, coffee, 25 books and 10 magazines. Neither the age nor value of the property is indicated on the form. At trial no mention was made of the missing Tens Unit, hearing aide, personal hygiene items, cigarettes, or coffee and no evidence was adduced establishing claimant's ownership or possession of any of the property on the date of his transfer. While claimant did submit a Customer Account Balance Reconciliation Sheet reflecting what appears to be the purchase of six books from an unknown company in 2009, the claimant's address at the time was not Great Meadow and the books were purchased approximately six years before the bailment allegedly occurred in 2015. Without Form # 2064, which is required to reflect each item of personal property transferred (see Exhibit B, p. 4 of 14), and absent receipts or any other evidence that the claimant owned and possessed the personalty at the time of the alleged loss, the Court cannot conclude that these items were delivered to the possession of the defendant.
Moreover, the Court notes that at the time of claimant's transfer, he was allowed only four bags of property in addition to a typewriter or musical instrument (Exhibit B, p. 12 of 14, ). Required to be shipped at the inmate's expense is one television, typewriter or musical instrument and any additional draft bag of active legal materials (id.). When an inmate's property exceeds the 4-bag limit, a 2068 form must be completed by the inmate in quadruplicate specifying whether the property should be sent to the package room and held for pick up by a visitor, shipped at the inmate's expense, or donated (id. at p. 3 of 14). While claimant asserts in a letter dated January 11, 2019 that defendant failed to follow this procedure, it was his burden to demonstrate that the property was delivered to the possession of the defendant but not returned. This he failed to do. Had claimant requested that his excess property be shipped, a disbursement form would have been generated and a 2068 form completed by the claimant. None of this evidence was submitted. Lastly, even if claimant succeeded in demonstrating a bailment (which he did not), he failed to establish the value of his legal papers or photographs. Legal papers often have no value and to the extent claimant may have had further use for them, he failed to establish their replacement cost as required ( see 7 NYCRR 1700.8 [a] [4]). With respect to the alleged loss of claimant's photographs, reimbursement for the sentimental value of the photographs is not permitted ( Smith v State of New York, Ct Cl, June 1, 2005, Scuccimarra, J., claim No. 107768, UID No. 2005-030-014), and the cost to reproduce the photographs was not addressed at trial.
Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the internet at: https://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
February 19, 2019
Saratoga Springs, New York
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims