New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

GONZALEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-016-077, Claim No. 110973


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-016-077
Claimant(s):
EDWARD GONZALEZ
Claimant short name:
GONZALEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110973
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Edward Gonzalez, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Dewey Lee, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
November 28, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
This decision follows the trial of the claim of Edward Gonzalez, in which Mr. Gonzalez alleges that on February 3, 2005, he learned that two bags of his personal property were lost when he was transferred between correctional facilities.
Gonzalez testified that he was at some point transferred from Otisville Correctional Facility to Fishkill Correctional Facility. Prior to the transfer, his property was packed up and it filled six bags. He was told that four bags would travel along with him to Fishkill, but that he would have to pay to have the remaining two bags shipped; he assumed they would be sent by U.S. mail. In that regard, he completed a disbursement form, which indicates that he paid a total of $25.62 to have the bags shipped. See claimant’s exhibit 1.
Claimant testified that he waited for the two bags to arrive, but they never came. When he inquired at the package room, he was told that his bags had been lost. He then filed a grievance, which was denied, as was his appeal of such denial.
* * *
Gonzalez did not testify as to what items of his property were lost, nor did he submit any documentation concerning the lost property. Moreover, to the extent that claimant’s bags were in the custody of the United States Postal Service when they were lost, the State would not be responsible (claimant presented no evidence that the bags ever reached Fishkill). See, e.g., McKinley v State of New York, Ct Cl, February 5, 2003 (unreported, claim no. 103261, Marin, J., UID #2003-016-007
[1]
).
In view of the foregoing, claimant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any negligence on the part of defendant. Accordingly, claim no. 110973 is dismissed.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

November 28, 2006
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the court’s website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.