Opinion
# 2016-041-509 Claim No. 118882
09-30-2016
JAMAHL CLARKE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JAMAHL CLARKE Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Belinda Wagner, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2016-041-509 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMAHL CLARKE |
| Claimant short name: | CLARKE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 118882 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | JAMAHL CLARKE Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Belinda Wagner, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | September 30, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Jamahl Clarke (claimant) alleges that, while he was an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility (Clinton), defendant lost the following items of his personal property: a) 53 adult magazines; b) a wool hat; and c) two cans of tobacco.
"To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a bailment transaction, claimant must demonstrate that his property was deposited with defendant and defendant failed to return it. . . Once claimant meets his burden, there is a rebuttable presumption that defendant is negligently responsible for the loss, and defendant must come forward with proof explaining the loss. . . The measure of recovery for the loss of bailed property is fair market value, which can be established by evidence of the original purchase price less a reasonable rate of depreciation" (citations omitted) (Amaker v State of New York, UID #2006-032-511 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., August 14, 2006]; see Claflin v Meyer, 75 NY 260 [1878]; Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]; Board of Educ. of Ellenville Cent. School v Herb's Dodge Sales & Serv., 79 AD2d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 1981]; Miceli v State of New York, 179 Misc 2d 424, 428-429 [Ct Cl 1998]). These principles are embodied in DOCS regulations at 7 NYCRR 1700.7 (Directive 2733) which provides in relevant part as follows:
This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found at the Court's website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us. --------
"(b) Property last in control of the department. When an inmate's property was last in the control of the department or its agents, and the department fails without good explanation to deliver it in to the inmate or the inmate's designee in the same condition as when received by the department, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the department is negligently responsible for the loss.
(1) To rebut the presumption of negligence, the reviewer must determine that all department staff who had a duty to protect the inmate's property carried out their duties in an acceptable way. If that is not shown or if it is shown that the department's staff failed to meet their responsibilities, then the department will be deemed to have been negligent."
"The general rule is that the measure of damages in a bailment of personal property is the difference in the fair market value thereof in its condition as delivered (to the bailee) versus its condition as returned" (Matter of Terranova v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 1089, 1097 [Ct Cl 1982]).
Trial of the claim, related to items allegedly lost in March 2010, was conducted on August 16, 2016. Claimant was his only witness, and corrections officer Colin Morrow was defendant's only witness.
Officer Morrow packed the contents of claimant's cell on March 10, 2010, as claimant was being transferred to special housing (SHU). Although Office Morrow testified to an inability to specifically remember packing the contents of claimant's cell on March 10, 2010, he did author a memo on April 18, 2010 (Exhibit A), subsequent to claimant having filed an inmate lost property claim form dated March 22, 2010, in which he states that he packed and secured all of the contents of claimant's cell on March 10, 2010.
Claimant testified that upon arriving at SHU, he found the claimed items missing from his transferred belongings. Claimant provided no documentation regarding the acquisition costs of the items claimed lost, nor did he allow (in his claim) for any depreciation of 32 of his claimed lost 56 items. The large majority of the adult magazines were valued by claimant at their individual $12.99 acquisition cost, and claimant's total claim seeks $498.87.
Magazines, by their very nature, represent choices of personal preference and their fair market value at any given time, particularly those older in age, is extremely limited and speculative at best, and valueless at worst.
Crediting claimant's testimony as to defendant having lost certain of his personal possessions, but given the paucity of proof regarding their acquisition costs and further, given their rather limited fair market value upon loss, the Court hereby awards claimant $50 in damages for the loss of his personal possessions, plus interest from March 10, 2010, to the date of Decision and thereafter to the date of entry of judgment, together with the actual amount of any fee paid to file the claim, as a taxable disbursement, pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).
All motions not previously decided are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
September 30, 2016
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims