Meaney v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meaney v. State

179 A.D.2d 1056

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketClaim No. 74856

StatusPublished

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1056 (Meaney v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meaney v. State, 179 A.D.2d 1056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The State of New York appeals from a judgment awarding the sum of $497.14 to claimant for the loss of personal property that he had placed in the possession and control of prison officials at Attica Correctional Facility. There is no merit to the State’s contention that its regulation (7 NYCRR 724.4) limits the amount an inmate may recover for a gold chain and mezuzah to $50. That regulation describes items that may be received by an inmate through the package room of a correctional facility (see, 7 NYCRR 724.1) and contains no language restricting the amount an inmate may recover for the loss of property delivered to prison officials for safekeeping. Further, the record is devoid of evidence that the subject items were received in the package room at Attica. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Blinder, J. — Negligence.) Present — Denman, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum: The State of New York appeals from a judgment awarding the sum of $497.14 to claimant for the loss of personal property that he had placed in the possession and control of prison officials at Attica Correctional Facility. There is no merit to the State’s contention that its regulation (7 NYCRR 724.4) limits the amount an inmate may recover for a gold chain and mezuzah to $50. That regulation describes items that may be received by an inmate through the package room of a correctional facility (see, 7 NYCRR 724.1) and contains no language restricting the amount an inmate may recover for the loss of property delivered to prison officials for safekeeping. Further, the record is devoid of evidence that the subject items were received in the package room at Attica. (Appeal from Judgment of Court of Claims, Blinder, J. — Negligence.) Present — Denman, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meaney-v-state-nyappdiv-1992.