On September 6, 2019, Claimant, Stanny Vargas, (hereinafter, the "Claimant"), filed a claim for bailment seeking damages in the amount of $10,232.50 (hereinafter, the "Claim"). The State interposed a Verified Answer on October 15, 2019.

The matter was duly scheduled and called for trial on the record on June 12, 2024 ^[FN1] . On that date, Claimant testified on his own behalf and the State did not call any witnesses. Claimant's Exhibits 1 through 5 were entered into evidence on consent. The Court took judicial notice of the pleadings, which are part of the Court's record, to wit: the Claim, along with the [*2]documents annexed thereto; and the Verified Answer. (see e.g. People v Petgen, 55 NY2d 529, 536 [1982] [recognizing a court's authority to take judicial notice of its own records]).

The parties stipulated to the following facts: On July 1, 2019, Mr. Vargas filed an institutional facility claim marked as 010-0103-19 alleging that his property was lost, specifically a Clear Tech radio, chess board, headphones, immersion heater, 35 pounds of food and 10 packs of cigarettes. His claim was disapproved and he appealed that decision to the facility superintendent, who denied same on August 7, 2019, which has allowed Mr. Vargas to file his claim here as he has exhausted his administrative remedies.

Claimant gave the following relevant credible testimony:

Claimant testified that he was moved to a different cell block at Auburn Correctional Facility and left all his property in the cell and was then sent to the Special Housing Unit. He testified that when his property was returned to him, he observed that the items set forth in his Claim were missing. During his testimony, he presented receipts for the following personal property items: Clear Tech radio -$19.75; headphones - $24.50; chess board - $43.75; 10 packs of cigarettes - $100.40; and freight - $10.00. The total for these items is $198.40. Claimant testified that he does not have receipts for his hot pot nor his 35 pounds of food.

Both parties rested.

The State "as a bailee of an inmate's personal property owes a common law duty to secure the property in its possession" (Llaca v State of New York, UID No. 2014-015-592 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Dec. 19, 2014], citing Pollard v State of New York, 173 AD2d 906 [3d Dept 1991], 7 NYCRR part 1700; see The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter "DOCCS") Directive No. 4913 ["each item of [an incarcerated individual's] personal property to be transferred shall be recorded on Form No.2064"].

Where an incarcerated person demonstrates that property deposited with defendant is not returned, a presumption arises that defendant lost the property as a result of its own negligence (id.; see Amaker v State of New York, UID No. 2006-032-511 [Ct Cl, Hard, J., Aug. 14, 2006]). These holdings are consistent with DOCCS directives governing incarcerated persons' property claims: "[w]hen an [incarcerated individual's] property was last in the control of [DOCCS], and [DOCCS] fails without good explanation to deliver it in to the [incarcerated individual]...in the same condition as when received by [DOCCS], then there is a rebuttable presumption that [DOCCS] is responsible for the loss" (7 NYCRR 1700.7 [b] [1] [DOCCS Directive No. 2733]).

Once a prima facie case of bailment negligence has been established, "defendant must come forward with proof explaining the loss" (Amaker, UID No. 2006-032-511, citing Matter of Terranova v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 1089 [Ct Cl 1982]; see 7 NYCRR 1700.7 [b]).

Finally, reaching the issue of valuation, in a bailment action, the Claimant must establish the value of each item of property for which he seeks damages (see Richards v State of New York, UID No. 2016-029-011 [Ct Cl, Mignano, J., Jan 28, 2016]). Although receipts "are the best evidence of fair market value, uncontradicted testimony concerning replacement value may also be acceptable" (Kilpatrick v State of New York, UID No. 2008-030-001 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Jan. 22, 2008]; see also Moley v State of New York, UID No. 2014-044-011 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Nov. 20, 2014] ["While claimant did not have purchase receipts for the missing items, his testimony regarding the value and depreciation was credible, and the value he assigned to them in his administrative appeal was more than reasonable, as was the depreciation he allocated"]).

Based upon the documentary evidence submitted by the Claimant as annexed to the Claim, together with Claimant's credible trial testimony, the Court finds and concludes that Claimant has established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that items of his property, as more specifically set forth herein above, under the care and control of Defendant were not delivered to him. Defendant submitted no competent evidence to rebut the presumption of negligent bailment and or to demonstrate that the loss was due to circumstances not within its control.

Accordingly, Claimant is awarded the sum of $198.40 as and for damages, along with statutory interest from June 24, 2019, date of accrual to the date of this decision, and thereafter to the date of entry of judgment. Any and all motions on which the Court may have previously reserved or which were not previously determined are denied. To the extent that Claimant has paid a filing fee, it may be recovered pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11-a (2).