Opinion
# 2015-049-015 Claim No. 124428 Motion No. M-85725 Cross-Motion No. CM-85826
02-23-2015
TONY WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Tony Williams, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Parties cross motions for summary judgment concerning an inmate's property claim are denied.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-049-015 |
| Claimant(s): | TONY WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124428 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85725 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-85826 |
| Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | Tony Williams, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | February 23, 2015 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In a claim filed May 27, 2014, claimant Tony Williams, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks monetary damages for a chain, medallion and wedding band that he states were confiscated from him when he was placed on suicide watch at Sing Sing Correctional Facility on November 19, 2013. The claim further alleges that Williams was transferred to Downstate Correctional Facility on November 26, 2013, and then to Southport Correctional Facility on November 29, 2013, where postage stamps were taken from him and not returned.
On December 29, 2013, claimant filed an institutional property claim requesting reimbursement of $425 for the chain, medallion and ring. (A claim was not made for the stamps.) Initially the claim was disapproved on the ground that Williams had already signed for the claimed property. Williams appealed, stating that he did not in fact sign for the property. The appeal was partially approved for $50. Claimant rejected the offer and this action ensued.
Claimant now moves for summary judgment and to dismiss the State's defenses. Defendant cross moves for summary judgment.
Though the claimant's notice of motion is one for "Immediate Trial," it is apparent from claimant's filing that he is seeking summary judgment as to liability and a trial on damages.
Claimant's motion papers include his own affidavit, which essentially reiterates the factual allegations of his claim that his property was taken from him and not returned.
Defendant submits, in support of its cross motion, the affidavit of Colleen Johnson, an Inmate Records Coordinator II at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn"), where Williams is now housed. She states that at the request of Assistant Attorney General Roberto Barbosa, she conducted a search to determine whether the Auburn Inmate Record Office was holding any property of Tony Williams. As a result of her search, she found one metal chain with a cross and one yellow metal ring. Defendant argues that since claimant's property was not lost or destroyed, it is therefore entitled to summary judgment.
Defendant says that the Sing Sing contraband receipt makes no reference to a medallion (Barbosa Aff. ¶ 13). It is not clear if claimant is, by this term, describing some additional lost item, or is referring to the crucifix.
In a reply submitted after the return date, claimant argues that defendant had already conceded liability when his inmate claim was approved on appeal.
Discussion
On cross motions for summary judgment, each movant must tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any issue of material fact (see 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 showing has been made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact, which requires a trial of the action (see Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562). If a movant fails to meet its prima facie burden, summary judgment must be denied regardless of the sufficiency of the response (see Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853).
When the State holds property belonging to an inmate within its prison system, it has a common-law duty to secure it in a non-negligent manner, and may be held liable for failing to carry out that duty (see Foy v State of New York, 182 AD2d 670 [2d Dept 1992]; Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991]). A claimant can satisfy his burden of establishing a prima facie case of the State's negligence in such a case by demonstrating the delivery of property to defendant, and defendant's failure to return it in the same condition (see Wolf v State of New York, UID No. 2009-009-206 [Ct Cl, Midey, J., Nov. 23, 2009]; Christian v State of New York, UID No. 2008-031-503 [Ct Cl, Minarik, J., Sept. 26, 2008]). The overall burden remains with claimant to prove his case by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence (see Rinaldi & Sons v Wells Fargo Alarm Serv., 39 NY2d 191, 196 [1976]).
On the current record, neither party has demonstrated that there are no issues of material fact, and both motions must be therefore be denied. While claimant has met his prima facie burden by alleging the State's taking of and failure to return his property, defendant has created an issue of fact as to the fate of the items at issue. Specifically, the State's submission may be read to state that the State is holding Williams' property as a custodian, and did not lose it through negligence. Further, contrary to claimant's assertion, defendant's offer of a monetary settlement is not an admission of civil liability (see CPLR 4547; see also Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, at 842 [CPLR § 4547 codified the established common law rule in New York that "the settlement of a disputed claim or an offer to settle . . . is inadmissible to prove . . . the liability of the alleged wrongdoer"]; Casey v State of New York, UID No. 2001-005-001, Corbett, J. [Jan. 19, 2001] ["offers of settlement, in and of themselves, while suggestive of a certain willingness by Defendant to settle, do not constitute an admission of liability"]). Finally, to the extent claimant's application may be construed as a motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses, Williams has not come forward with sufficient proof to demonstrate that the defenses cannot be maintained (see CPLR 3211[b]; see also Arquette v State of New York, 190 Misc 2d 676 [Ct Cl 2001]; Vita v New York Waste Servs., LLC, 34 AD3d 559 [2d Dept 2006]).
But, defendant's submission is insufficient to sustain its own burden. It states only that it is holding Williams property, but does not indicate why, or under what circumstances, the property will be returned (if at all). Nor is it clear why the State has not returned the property to Williams, why defendant did not give back Williams' property in response to his grievance - if it was holding it all along - and why defendant has adopted a different position now that Williams has commenced this action.
In sum, while the State's submission may be read to indicate that the property is available for Williams to reclaim, the State did not say that in response to his grievance, and has not said it unambiguously now. The State has, in short, not demonstrated that there are no issues of material fact in regard to claimant's assertion that the State has wrongfully failed to return his property.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that motion no. M-85725 and cross-motion CM-85826 be denied.
February 23, 2015
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Claimant's Notice of Motion for Immediate Trial, Affidavit in Support and annexed Exhibits.
2. Defendant's Notice of Cross Motion, Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant's Motion and in Support of Defendant's Cross Motion and annexed Exhibits.
3. Claimant's Answer to Cross Motion of Defendant and annexed Exhibits.
4. Claimant's Supplemental Reply/Answer to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment.