New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DAOOD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-063, Claim No. 104050, Motion No. M-71530


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-063
Claimant(s):
ALI DAOOD
Claimant short name:
DAOOD
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104050
Motion number(s):
M-71530
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant’s attorney:
Ali Daood, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Kathleen M. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 25, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this bailment claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and claimant fails to submit opposition to this request. For the reasons to be stated, the Court grants defendant's motion.

In March 2001, claimant was an inmate incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, and filed this action alleging that during a visit to Central New York Psychiatric Center in December 2000, certain personal property was lost. The claim does not allege that claimant filed either a grievance or an institutional claim. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (9) allows an inmate to recover damages for loss of personal property provided, however, that the inmate has exhausted administrative remedies established for inmates by the Department of Correctional Services. The Department has established a two-tier system for handling bailment claims consisting of an initial review and an appeal (7 NYCRR 1700.3). Both of these separate and distinct steps must be completed at the time a claim is filed and served in order for a claimant to be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).

Although the claim does not allege that claimant filed an institutional claim, defendant‛s submissions indicate that claimant filed an institutional claim, but failed to appeal the denial of the claim to the Superintendent. Thus, claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and his claim must be dismissed.

Accordingly, defendant's motion M-71530 is granted.



July 25, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed March 28, 2006;

2. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold dated March 27, 2006; Exhibits A-C annexed.