New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BAYRON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-041-005, Claim No. 112389, Motion No. M-72188


Inmate lost property claim dismissed based upon failure to exhaust administrative remedy.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Victor BayronPro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, New York State Attorney GeneralBy: Kathleen M. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 29, 2006

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211(a)(2) and (8) to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the claim because claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Court of Claims Act § 10(9).

Claimant has not submitted any opposition to the motion.

Claimant is an inmate at Upstate Correctional Facility. The claim alleges that defendant negligently lost certain items of claimant’s personal property while claimant was being transferred from the general inmate population to the facility’s special housing unit.

Court of Claims Act § 10(9) provides as follows:

“A claim of any inmate in the custody of the department of correctional services for recovery of damages for injury to or loss of personal property may not be filed unless and until the inmate has exhausted the personal property claims administrative remedy, established for inmates by the department. Such claim must be filed and served within one hundred twenty days after the date on which the inmate has exhausted such remedy.”

Claimant’s mandated administrative remedy is set forth at 7 NYCRR Part 1700, and entitled “Inmate Personal Property Claims.” Upon the filing of a claim, 7 NYCRR 1700.3 provides that a facility reviewer will make an initial decision to approve or deny the claim and that an appeal of the initial decision may be made to either the facility superintendent or to the Department of Correctional Services Central Office for review, depending upon the alleged value of the lost property. 7 NYCRR 1700.3(b)(4) advises that “[n]o further administrative review is available after appeal. The remaining option is for the inmate to pursue the claim in the Court of Claims.”

Claimant filed two Inmate Claim Forms initiating the required administrative process. The administrative claim was denied on June 20, 2006. The denial notice stated that claimant was entitled to appeal the initial decision. Claimant failed to appeal the initial decision prior to filing and serving this claim.

Claimant’s failure to exhaust the “two-tier system for handling bailment claims consisting of an initial review and an appeal” (Perkins v the State of New York, [Ct Cl, Hard, J., #2006-032-077])[1] provided by 7 NYCRR 1700.3 requires dismissal of the claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(9).

Defendant’s motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.

September 29, 2006
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:
  1. Defendant’s Notice of Motion, filed August 24, 2006;
  2. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold, affirmed on August 23, 2006, with annexed exhibits.

This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found at the Court's website: