New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TINSLEY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-019-592, Claim No. 103437, Motion No. M-69115


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for summary judgment on bailment cause of action is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2004-019-592
Claimant(s):
JOSEPH TINSLEY, #85-A-4661
Claimant short name:
TINSLEY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103437
Motion number(s):
M-69115
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
JOSEPH TINSLEY, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBY: Kathleen M. Resnick Arnold, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
November 4, 2004
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for summary judgment on his bailment claim. The State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes the motion.

Claimant's personal property was packed into four draft bags on May 29, 2000 in preparation for a transfer from Coxsackie Correctional Facility to Southport Correctional Facility. Upon arrival at Southport, claimant discovered that one of his four bags was missing. Claimant immediately filed an administrative grievance for all the articles he alleges were inside the missing bag. The facility offered claimant $25 to settle his grievance. Claimant rejected the settlement offer and filed this instant claim. This claim was filed on November 27, 2000. The State filed a Verified Answer on January 2, 2001.


Now, by way of this motion claimant argues he is entitled to summary judgment. In opposition, the State contends that the motion should be denied because claimant failed to attach a copy of his pleadings or, in the alternative, argues that questions of fact exist warranting the denial of summary judgment.


The State argues that denial of claimant's motion is mandated since he failed to include a copy of the pleadings with his motion for summary judgment. (CPLR 3212 [b]). The court agrees. (Welton v Drobnicki, 298 AD2d 757; Bonded Concrete v Town of Saugerties, 3 AD3d 729, 730, lv dismissed 2 NY3d 793).


That having been said, however, even if the court were to consider the substance of claimant's motion, it would have found summary judgment is not warranted due to the existence of material questions of fact. More specifically, based on this record, while it appears some of claimant's property may well have been lost, the court cannot conclude with any certainty which items are involved.


Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that claimant's motion for summary judgment, Motion No. M-69115, is DENIED.


November 4, 2004
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim, filed November 27, 2000.
  2. Verified Answer, filed January 2, 2001.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-69115, filed September 7, 2004.
  4. Affidavit of Joseph Tinsley, in support of motion, sworn to September 2, 2004, with attachments.
  5. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Resnick Arnold, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated September 29, 2004.