Opinion
# 2018-032-015 Claim No. 120755
01-08-2019
JESSIE J. BARNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Jessie Barnes, Pro Se Hon. Letitia James, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Synopsis
Following a trial on liability, the Court finds that claimant failed to prove his claim for bailment or his claim for ministerial negligence by a preponderance of the medical evidence.
Case information
| UID: | 2018-032-015 |
| Claimant(s): | JESSIE J. BARNES |
| Claimant short name: | BARNES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120755 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jessie Barnes, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Letitia James, NYS Attorney General By: Ray A. Kyles, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | January 8, 2019 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant action on January 5, 2012, alleging causes of action for negligence arising from the confiscation and destruction of his eyeglasses on April 15, 2010 and the loss of his legal papers on June 14, 2010 (Exhibits 3, 9). The matter proceeded to trial on October 18, 2018.
FACTS
Claimant's eyeglasses were lost during an altercation with correction officers on April 15, 2010 at Five Points Correctional Facility (FPCF) (see Exhibit 15). He filed a personal property claim at FPCF for the loss of the eyeglasses and the claim was denied (Exhibit 3). Claimant also complained multiple times to the nursing staff at the FPCF infirmary about his lost glasses (Exhibit 1). In May 2010, after returning to FPCF from a court appearance, he was informed by a letter from Deputy Commissioner Lucien Leclaire, Jr. that a new pair of glasses would be dispensed (Exhibit 19). However, on August 16, 2010, Nurse Administrator N. Smith informed claimant that "unless you filed a claim, and won, for glasses, you received a pair [in March 2010] and are not elligable [sic] at our expense until [March 2012]" (Exhibit 1). This position was confirmed by the Central Office Review Committee (CORC), which informed claimant on September 1, 2010 that if he wanted replacement glasses, he must pay for them (Exhibit 3). Claimant subsequently filed an Article 78 petition in Franklin County Supreme Court on October 18, 2010 seeking a court order for the replacement of his glasses at no charge (Exhibit 3). On June 20, 2011, Supreme Court ordered defendant to supply claimant with replacement glasses without charge (Exhibit 3). By August 2011, defendant had not complied with the Supreme Court's order. By letter dated August 15, 2011, an Assistant Attorney General notified the Supreme Court that, for undetermined reasons, claimant still had not received his glasses, but that the Supreme Court's order had been forwarded to the facility's superintendent (Exhibit 3). Claimant acknowledged receipt of his replacement glasses on August 22, 2011 (Exhibit 1).
Claimant did not present much testimony at trial regarding the destruction of his legal papers. It appears from the evidence received at trial that he filed a facility claim for $245.90 for the destruction of legal briefs that were bound by plastic. The claim was ultimately denied by the Superintendent (Exhibit 6). Multiple correction officers wrote memoranda indicating that none of claimant's legal briefs were destroyed and that the property in question was returned to him on June 21, 2010 after a paper deprivation hold was lifted (Exhibit 6).
LAW AND ANALYSIS Claimant alleges that defendant lost his legal papers and certain other documents. This claim is one alleging that defendant took possession of claimant's personal property, creating a bailment, and lost it through its negligent handling. The State has a duty to secure an inmate's property and may be liable in tort for failing to do so (Waul v State of New York, UID No. 2004-009-134 [Ct Cl, Midey, J., Dec. 9, 2004], affd 27 AD3d 1114 [4th Dept. 2006]; Edwards v State of New York, UID No. 2012-039-349 [Ct Cl, Ferreira, J., Dec. 24, 2012]).
A bailment is created once claimant demonstrates that his property has been delivered to defendant, and that defendant has failed to return it to claimant in the same condition (Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp ., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept. 1977]; Christian v State of New York, 21 Misc 3d 1128[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52267[U] [Ct Cl 2008]). If claimant meets this burden, there is a presumption of liability, and the burden then shifts to defendant to come forward with evidence to overcome the presumption by establishing a non-negligent explanation for the loss of claimant's property (Maisel v Gruner & Jahr USA, 89 AD2d 503 [1st Dept. 1982]).
After assessing the weight of the evidence and observing the demeanor of the witness, the Court finds that claimant has failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Although the documents submitted as exhibits at trial establish that correction staff took papers out of claimant's cell, they also establish that the documents were returned to claimant after his paper deprivation order expired (Exhibit 6). Accordingly, the Court finds that claimant failed to establish that defendant failed to return the documents, and thus has failed to prove his bailment claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
As to the claim regarding claimant's eyeglasses, "[i]t is fundamental law that the State has a duty to provide reasonable and adequate medical care to the inmates of its prisons" (Rivers v State of New York, 159 AD2d 788, 789 [3d Dept. 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]; accord Auger v State of New York, 263 AD2d 929, 931 [3d Dept. 1999]). "Where an inmate alleges that defendant abdicated its duty to provide adequate medical care, he or she must present competent evidence demonstrating defendant's common-law negligence or that it departed from accepted standards of care and that such deviation was the proximate cause of the sustained injuries" (Knight v State of New York, 127 AD3d 1435, 1435 [3d Dept. 2015]). "Whether the claim is grounded in negligence or medical malpractice, where medical issues are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of lay persons, expert medical testimony is a required element of a prima facie case" (Myers v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1030, 1031 [3d Dept. 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Knight v State of New York, 127 AD3d at 1435; Wood v State of New York, 45 AD3d 1198, 1198 [3d Dept 2007]).
Although claimant characterizes his claim as a claim for ministerial negligence, the Court cannot answer the question of whether defendant's delay in providing eyeglasses to claimant caused claimant's ailments without expert medical testimony (McFadden v State of New York, 138 AD3d 1167, 1168 [3d Dept. 2016], appeal dismissed 28 NY3d 947 [2016]). Claimant alleges that defendant's failure to provide him with eyeglasses caused numerous physical ailments, such as headaches and blurry vision. Although the Court is sympathetic of claimant's lengthy plight to obtain replacement eyeglasses, claimant presented no expert medical testimony. Specifically, the Court received no expert testimony regarding whether the delay in providing eyeglasses caused his alleged physical ailments. As such information lies outside the experience and knowledge of a layperson, the Court finds claimant's failure to present expert testimony to be fatal to this claim (see Tolliver v State of New York, 133 AD3d 990, 991 [3d Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 919 [2016]; Myers v State of New York, 46 AD3d at 1031; Wood v State of New York, 45 AD3d at 1198).
Based on the foregoing, claim number 120755 is dismissed in its entirety. All motions and applications not previously determined are hereby denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
January 8, 2019
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims