New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PERKINS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-077, Claim No. 108975, Motion No. M-71963


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-077
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL PERKINS
Claimant short name:
PERKINS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108975
Motion number(s):
M-71963
Cross-motion number(s):

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

Signature date:
September 12, 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. For the reasons to be stated, the Court grants defendant‛s motion.

In March 2004, claimant filed three documents denominated as a "claim" and all were accepted for filing under claim 108975. In the first document, claimant, an inmate incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, alleged that between January 9-12, 2004, inmates were allowed to enter his cell and steal his property. In the next document, claimant alleges that he filed a complaint with the Superintendent, a grievance and a facility claim. The last document entitled "claim" is worded slightly differently, but alleges the property loss and that he filed a complaint, grievance and inmate claim form. In February 2004, claimant's facility claim was denied and claimant failed to appeal this denial.

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).

Given that claimant failed to appeal denial of his facility claim, he did not complete the two-step process. Thus, the claim must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Accordingly, defendant's motion M-71963 is granted.


September 12, 2006
Albany, New York

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


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed July 7, 2006;

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

3. Letter of Michael Perkins received July 14, 2006;

4. Reply Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold filed July 18, 2005; Exhibit D annexed.