New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

EVANS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-066, Claim No. 112025, Motion No. M-71580


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-066
Claimant(s):
ERIC EVANS
Claimant short name:
EVANS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112025
Motion number(s):
M-71580
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant’s attorney:
Eric Evans, 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 31, 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. In opposing this relief, claimant argues that he exhausted his remedies.

Claimant filed this bailment claim in March 2006, alleging that upon his transfer from Lyon Mountain Correctional Facility to another facility in November 2005, he noticed that certain personal property was missing. Claimant filed an institutional claim, which was disapproved on February 10, 2006. The claim does not indicate that claimant thereafter appealed the disapproval. Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim because claimant failed to exhaust his 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).

Claimant argues that he "submitted his appeal response to the defendants" in February 2006 ("Notice of Motion to Respond" ¶ 8). The Court is uncertain what this statement means. If claimant intended this statement to establish that he appealed his disapproval, he fails to submit any documentation to support this statement. Moreover, even if he did appeal the disapproval, he failed to await the decision on his appeal before commencing this action. Thus, claimant‛s submissions fail to establish that he did appeal the disapproval or, if he did, that he filed his claim after a decision on his appeal. Thus, claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Accordingly, defendant's motion M-71580 is granted.


July 31, 2006
Albany, New York

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


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed April 7, 2006;

2. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold dated April 7, 2006; Exhibits A-B annexed;

3. "Notice of Motion to Respond"; unmarked attachments.