Opinion
# 2016-044-509 Claim No. 123727 Motion No. M-87503
02-09-2016
JESSIEENGLES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
JESSIE ENGLES, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Thomas Trace, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Court denied inmate claimant's motion for summary judgment in bailment claim.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-044-509 |
| Claimant(s): | JESSIE ENGLES |
| Claimant short name: | ENGLES |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123727 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87503 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE |
| Claimant's attorney: | JESSIE ENGLES, pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Thomas Trace, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 9, 2016 |
| City: | Binghamton |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this claim to recover for the loss of personal property which allegedly occurred during his transfer from the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira) to the Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYCP) and then to Wende Correctional Facility (Wende), while he was in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Defendant State of New York (defendant) answered and asserted two affirmative defenses. Claimant now moves for summary judgment. Defendant opposes the motion.
After conducting an in camera review, this Court denied claimant's previous motion to compel disclosure of certain DOCCS directives (Engles v State of New York, UID No. 2015-044-523 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., July 1, 2015]).
Claimant contends that when he was transferred to CNYPC, defendant did not pack the personal property which was located in his SHU cell but instead destroyed it. Claimant argues that Elmira only sent the two bags of his personal property which had been in SHU Storage to Wende. Conversely, defendant asserts that claimant contaminated his property with feces and flooded his cell, an action which required defendant to dispose of the property.
Claimant, as the movant of this summary judgment motion, is required to set forth evidentiary facts in admissible form which establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Once this burden has been met, it is incumbent upon the opposing party to produce admissible evidence sufficient to create material issues of fact requiring a trial of the action (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). However, absent such a prima facie showing by the movant, the motion must be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853).
A bailment is created when personal property is delivered into the hands of another, who is then expected to return it in the same condition on demand (Claflin v Meyer, 75 NY 260, 262 [1878]). Defendant has an obligation to secure an inmate's personal property (Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]). Once a claimant meets the burden of proving that his property was deposited with the defendant and that the latter failed to return it, the burden shifts to the defendant to overcome the presumption of its negligence (Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]).
Claimant has provided an affidavit in support of this motion in which he states that after attempting to commit suicide on April 20, 2013, he was removed from his SHU cell and placed in the "obsevation [sic] strip cell." He was returned to his SHU cell a few days later, but was again confined in an observation cell after another attempt to commit suicide. Claimant indicates that he remained in the observation cell until May 28, 2013 when he was transferred to CNYPC. Claimant states that he was transferred from CNYPC to Wende on July 10, 2013.
Affidavit of Jessie Engles, sworn to Aug. 4, 2015, in Support of Motion, ¶ 6.
Claimant notes that when he received his property which had been sent from Elmira to Wende, he discovered many missing items. He states that he filed Facility Claim No. 430-0036-13 and Correction Sergeant E. Mendez conducted an investigation. Claimant states that officials at Elmira informed Mendez that they disposed of claimant's property because he had contaminated it with feces on April 20, 2013. Facility Claim No. 430-0036-13 was denied based upon this investigation and the administrative appeal was also denied.
Claimant denies that he contaminated his property and notes that defendant has admitted that it does not have an Inmate Misbehavior Report, an Unusual Incident Report, an Unusual Incident Photograph, or any "to-from" memoranda concerning the purported unhygienic act which allegedly occurred on April 20, 2013. Claimant argues that defendant fabricated the unhygienic act in an attempt to justify destroying his property.
Claimant has submitted a copy of Facility Claim No. 430-0036-13 which indicates that it was denied based upon an investigation which revealed that claimant destroyed his property by covering his SHU cell with feces and then flooding it. Claimant's administrative appeal was also denied. Claimant has also submitted a copy of a memorandum from Sergeant Mendez to Captain Casaceli. In this memorandum, Mendez states that on August 1, 2013, L. Pastwik from the I.R.C. (presumably Inmate Records Coordinator) Office contacted the Elmira SHU sergeant who stated that "[claimant] was sent with two bags that were in storage, the rest of his property which was in his [SHU] cell, was destroyed by his actions of . . . covering his cell in feces and flooding it." Claimant has also provided copies of his inmate account monthly statements, receipts from outside vendors, and DOCCS non-food package records for various dates in 2011 and 2012.
Id., Exhibit B at 3.
Claimant has also included a SHU inventory form from Great Meadow Correctional Facility dated October 1, 2013. This document does not appear to have any relevance as it was created after claimant's property was destroyed.
Although claimant has established that he purchased certain books in 2011 which are listed as missing in Facility Claim No. 430-0036-13, he has not provided any documentary evidence that he had those books in his cell on April 20, 2013. The Court notes that during discovery, claimant requested a copy of the I-64 prepared when he transferred from Marcy Correctional Facility to Elmira on July 10, 2012 as well as the I-64 for the property transferred from Elmira to Wende in July 2013. However, counsel for defendant represented that these documents which would be kept at claimant's current facility (Five Points Correctional Facility) were not on file. Without this documentation, the Court finds that claimant has not met his burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. ,
The Court notes that claimant will be able to provide testimony concerning the contents of his cell at trial. At that time, he may also request that the Court drawn an adverse inference based upon defendant's inability to produce the I-64s.
In any event, there is a question of fact as to whether claimant either destroyed his own property or engaged in conduct which justified defendant's destruction of the property. Because resolution of this factual issue will require the Court to assess the witnesses' credibility, summary judgment is inappropriate (see e.g. Black v Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 80 AD3d 958 [3d Dept 2011]). --------
Accordingly, claimant's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety without regard to defendant's opposition papers.
February 9, 2016
Binghamton, New York
CATHERINE C. SCHAEWE
Judge of the Court of Claims The following papers were read on claimant's motion: 1) Notice of Motion filed on September 18, 2015; Affidavit of Jessie Engles sworn to on August 4, 2015, attached exhibits; Memorandum of Law sworn to on September 3, 2015. 2) Affirmation in Opposition of Thomas Trace, Assistant Attorney General, dated November 20, 2015, and attached exhibits. Filed papers: Claim filed on December 30, 2013; Verified Answer filed on January 30, 2014.