New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BARRIENTOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-013-013, Claim No. 106715, Motion No. M-66036


Synopsis


Inmate personal property claim is dismissed because Claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Case Information

UID:
2003-013-013
Claimant(s):
RAYMOND BARRIENTOS
Claimant short name:
BARRIENTOS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106715
Motion number(s):
M-66036
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
PHILIP J. PATTI
Claimant's attorney:
RAYMOND BARRIENTOS, Pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
BY: REYNOLDS E. HAHN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 30, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


On December 18, 2002, the following papers were read on Defendant's motion for an order of dismissal:
1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation of Reynolds E. Hahn


2. Affidavit in Opposition: None Received


3. Filed Papers: Claim


This claim seeks compensation for personal property that was allegedly lost while in the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). Claimant was transferred from Wende Correctional Facility on August 13, 2001 and eventually arrived at Auburn Correctional Facility on October 23, 2001. During the period of transfer, Claimant was also housed at Wyoming Correctional Facility and Orleans Correctional Facility, and it appears from his allegations that some portion of his property was lost during the transfer from Orleans to Auburn.

After discovering the loss when he reached Auburn, Claimant filed an institutional claim, seeking $1,690.00 in compensation. His administrative claim was denied on November 29, 2001 (Claim, Exhibit D). Claimant also alleges that he served a Notice of Intention on the Attorney General on October 29, 2001 (Claim, ¶13) and that the claim, which was filed on September 30, 2002, was filed "within one year from discovery of the negligent loss or intentional theft of Claimant's property" (Claim ¶14).

In lieu of answering, Defendant has moved for an order dismissing the claim on the ground that Claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and thus failed to comply with the requirement of Section 10(9) of the Court of Claims Act. That statute provides that property loss claims brought by inmates in the custody of DOCS may not be filed "unless and until the inmate has exhausted the personal property claims administrative remedy, established for inmates by the department." A claim must then be filed within 120 days after the date such remedies are finally exhausted.

Defense counsel confirms that Claimant filed an institutional claim in late October 2001 and that it was denied the following month (Hahn Affirmation, Exhibit A). Counsel has also provided documentation to establish that Claimant failed to appeal that ruling to the facility Superintendent or make a direct appeal to the DOCS Central Office (Hahn Affirmation, Exhibit B). Claimant has not opposed this motion.

Because Claimant failed to comply with the statutory requirements applicable to commencing inmate personal property claims, Defendant's motion is granted and Claim No. 106715 is dismissed.


June 30, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. PHILIP J. PATTI
Judge of the Court of Claims