Opinion
# 2020-040-011 Claim No. 126610
02-04-2020
JAMES NICHOLSON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
James Nicholson, Pro Se LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Charles Lim, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Following Trial, Court finds Claimant established his bailment Claim. Award $250.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-040-011 |
| Claimant(s): | JAMES NICHOLSON |
| Claimant short name: | NICHOLSON |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126610 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | James Nicholson, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Charles Lim, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 4, 2020 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Pro se Claimant, James Nicholson, has established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Defendant was negligent in losing certain items of his personal property when he was transferred to Fishkill Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Fishkill") from Bare Hill Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Bare Hill"). The trial of this Claim was held by video conference on November 15, 2019, with the parties at Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York, and the Judge at the Court of Claims in Albany, New York. At trial, the Court had marked as Court Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, Claimant's filed Claim, and the State's Answer. Claimant submitted into evidence two documents (Exs. 1, 2). Claimant was the only person to testify at trial.
Claimant testified that, on February 12, 2015, he was transferred from Bare Hill to Clinton Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Clinton") and he was then transferred from Clinton to Fishkill, where he arrived on February 13, 2015 and received his property. Claimant submitted into evidence the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Personal Property Transferred form (hereinafter, "I-64 form") listing his property when he left Bare Hill and when he arrived at Clinton (Ex. 1). Mr. Nicholson testified that the property in question was new, having been received from his family in December 2014. He also submitted into evidence his I-64 form listing his property when he arrived at Fishkill (Ex. 2). Handwritten across the face of the form is "State greens/whites." Claimant stated that notation was written by a correction officer at Fishkill when he was given his property. He further stated that the only property he received at Fishkill was his State-issued property.
To establish a prima facie case of negligence in a bailment transaction, "[C]laimant must demonstrate that his property was deposited with the [D]efendant and the [D]efendant failed to return it … Once [C]laimant meets his burden, there is a rebuttable presumption that the [D]efendant is negligently responsible for the loss, and [D]efendant must come forward with proof explaining the loss" (Rivera v State of New York, UID No. 2008-041-501 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Jan.10, 2008], quoting Amaker v State of New York, UID No. 2006-032-511 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Aug. 14, 2006]; see Claflin v Meyer, 75 NY 260, 262 [1878]; Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]; Singer Co. v Stott & Davis Motor Express, 79 AD2d 227, 231 [4th Dept 1981]; Board of Educ. of Ellenville Cent. School v Herb's Dodge Sales & Serv., 79 AD2d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 1981]; Weinberg v D-M Rest. Corp., 60 AD2d 550 [1st Dept 1977]). "With respect to value, Claimant must satisfy the court of the fair market value of the items in question … Receipts are the best evidence of fair market value [less depreciation], although uncontradicted testimony concerning replacement value may also be acceptable" (Kilpatrick v State of New York, UID No. 2008-030-001 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Jan. 22, 2008]; see Phillips v Catania, 155 AD2d 866 [4th Dept 1989]; Alston v State of New York, 9 Misc 3d 1126[A] [Ct Cl 2005]; Schaffner v Pierce, 75 Misc 2d 21 [Nassau County Dist Ct 1973]).
Based upon the documentary evidence submitted (Exs. 1 & 2), together with Claimant's credible, plausible, and uncontradicted trial testimony, the Court finds and concludes that Claimant has established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that he possessed numerous items that were under the care and control of Defendant. The State's refusal or inability to return the bailed items on demand creates a presumption of negligence by Defendant, a presumption that the State has failed to rebut.
The Court finds these items to be: 1 belt, 6 T-shirts, 1 pair of shower shoes, 1 pair of gym shorts, 1 pair of sneakers, 5 pairs of socks, 3 pairs of underwear, 1 set of thermal underwear (top and bottom), 4 cans of food, 1 box of food, 12 pouches/bags of food, 1 bowl, 1 cup, 1 eyeglass case, 1 18 oz. pouch of tobacco, 1 combination lock, and 1 storage bag. Claimant's testimony and the exhibits demonstrate his ownership of such items and their loss (see Exs. 1, 2). The Court finds and concludes that Claimant failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he possessed and the State lost the remainder of the items he asserted in the Claim. The Court also finds and concludes that the value of the items which were in Claimant's possession at the time of their loss was $250.00.
Accordingly, the Court finds and concludes that Claimant is entitled to judgment in the sum of $250.00, the value of the lost property, inclusive of interest, as determined by the Court. To the extent that Claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a(2).
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
February 4, 2020
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims