Opinion
# 2016-032-503 Claim No. 120207
07-06-2016
JEFFREY COLLINS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Jeffrey Collins, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Synopsis
Following a trial, claimant failed to establish the elements of a bailment claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-032-503 |
| Claimant(s): | JEFFREY COLLINS |
| Claimant short name: | COLLINS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 120207 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | JUDITH A. HARD |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jeffrey Collins, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Michael T. Krenrich, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 6, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant claim on August 8, 2011 sounding in negligent bailment with respect to the loss of a computer keyboard while incarcerated at Coxsackie Correctional Facility. Following joinder of issue, the matter proceeded to trial on April 14, 2016. Taking into account the trial testimony, including the demeanor and credibility of claimant and his witness, and upon reviewing the Exhibits received into evidence, the Court finds that claimant failed to establish the elements of his claim.
FACTS
Claimant's testimony and the documents received at trial establish that, upon arrival at the facility, he was directed to dispose of certain excess property, including a computer keyboard. According to the authorization form executed by a correction officer, the keyboard did not comply with the facility's policies because it was 38 inches long, was equipped with an internet data expansion system, and had memory capability (Claimant's Ex. 3, Authorization for Disposal of Personal Property). Claimant alleges that the disposal of the keyboard was not authorized because said restrictions are not set forth in Directive No. 4911, which governs packages or articles sent or brought to a facility (Claim, ¶ 12). At trial, claimant further stated that he was not given the option to have the keyboard sent home, rather than having it destroyed, which constituted a violation of the facility's policies for the disposal of personal property. Claimant also offered the testimony of another witness, who stated that he was permitted to possess a keyboard at the facility.
ANALYSIS
It is well settled that the State has a duty to secure an inmate's personal property and may be held liable in tort for failing to so do (see Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906, 907 [3d Dept 1991]; Christian v State of New York, 21 Misc 3d 1128 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52267 [U], *3 [Ct Cl 2008]). As with any traditional tort claim, claimant has the initial burden of establishing that defendant took possession of the property in question and failed to return it (see Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550, 550 [1st Dept 1977]). Once claimant meets that burden, there is a presumption of liability on the part of defendant, to whom the burden then shifts to overcome that presumption by establishing a non-negligent explanation for the loss (see Maisel v Gruner & Jahr USA, 89 AD2d 503, 504 [1st Dept 1982]; New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC, 33 Misc 3d 612, 616 [Poughkeepsie City Ct, 2011]) or by demonstrating that it exercised ordinary care (see Board of Educ. of Ellenville Cent. School v Herb's Dodge Sales & Serv., 79 AD2d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 1981]).
Here, although claimant met his burden of establishing that defendant took possession of the keyboard and disposed of it (Claimant's Ex. 3, Authorization for Disposal of Personal Property), the Court finds that defendant established a non-negligent explanation for the loss by showing that the keyboard failed to comply with the facility's local rule regarding possession of such an item (see O'Connor v State of New York, 296 AD2d 447, 448 [2d Dept 2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 501 [2002]). Pursuant to the applicable regulations governing inmate behavior, "an inmate shall not possess any item unless it has been specifically authorized by the superintendent or designee, the rules of the department or the local rules of the facility" (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [14] [xiii]). As relevant here, a memorandum issued by the facility in October 2008 prohibits inmates from possessing keyboards that are more than 34 inches in length or are equipped with "play back memory" or a USB port (Claimant's Ex. 3, Memorandum to All Security Staff and Inmate Population). During cross-examination, claimant's witness conceded that he believed that the keyboard he possessed complied with said criteria, while claimant admitted that his keyboard did not. As to claimant's argument, raised for the first time at trial, that he requested to have the keyboard sent home rather than destroyed, the Court finds his testimony in that regard to be incredible (see Gonzalez v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 712 [2009]; LeGrand v State of New York, 195 AD2d 784, 785 [3d Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 663 [1993]), particularly given that the evidence shows that claimant refused to sign the form authorizing such a request (Claimant's Ex. 3, Authorization for Disposal of Personal Property). Accordingly, as claimant failed to establish that the disposal of the keyboard was the result of defendant's negligence, his claim must be dismissed (see Voorhis v Consolidated Rail Corp., 60 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1983]; O'Connor v State of New York, 296 AD2d at 448).
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing and upon the review of the documentary evidence, the oral testimony of claimant and his witness, and observance of their demeanor at trial, the Court finds that claimant failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. The claim is therefore dismissed.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
July 6, 2016
Albany, New York
JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims