STEVIE CANTY v. TERRANCE MOORE, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6242-04T3

A-2799-05T22799-05T2

STEVIE CANTY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TERRANCE MOORE, ADMINISTRATOR OF

EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, BEVERLY

BROADUS-SMITH, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

OF EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, and

EDWARD KOCSERHA, SUPERVISOR OF MAINTENANCE

AT EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON,

Defendants-Respondents.

____________________________________________

REMY SAINVALLIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TERRANCE MOORE, ADMINISTRATOR OF

EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON, EDWARD

KOCSERHA, SUPERVISOR OF MAINTENANCE

AT EAST JERSEY STATE PRISON,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________________________

 
Submitted October 31, 2006 - Decided December 4, 2006-

Before Judges Weissbard and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil

Part, Union County, Docket Nos.

DC-1693-05 and DC-8670-05.

Stevie Canty, appellant, pro se

(A-6242-04T3).

Remy Sainvallier, appellant pro se

(A-2799-05T2).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General of

New Jersey, attorney for respondents in

both appeals (Michael J. Haas, Assistant

Attorney General, of counsel; Jean P.

Reilly, Deputy Attorney General, on

the briefs).

PER CURIAM

In these two cases, Stevie Canty and Remy Sainvallier, State Prison inmates, separately appeal from orders of summary judgment dismissing their Law Division complaints against employees of the Department of Corrections (DOC) arising out of the performance of their duties at East Jersey State Prison. In each instance, the court found that the complaints amounted to appeals of administrative agency action that should have been filed in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-3(a)(2). Because these appeals arise from the same nucleus of operative facts and are governed by the same legal principles, we resolve them both in this opinion.

These appeals involve the same issue as Perez v. Moore, No. A-5119-04T3 (App. Div. June 6, 2006). Each case involved administrative claims filed by inmates whose personal property was destroyed in a fire on February 25, 2004, that ravaged 6 Wing of East Jersey State Prison. After presentation of their damage claims, a number of inmates, including Perez, rejected the Department of Corrections settlement offers. In formulating its settlement offer to Perez, the DOC assigned the same depreciated values for certain larger items, such as televisions or stereos, without reference to the actual value of the items. We concluded that such valuations were arbitrary and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. We remanded to the DOC for further consideration of the inmate's claim.

Canty and Sainvallier are identically situated to Perez. Canty's brief and the State's reply were filed before Perez was decided and do not reference that decision. However, the State's brief in Sainvallier was filed after Perez and concedes that a remand is required to permit "development of the record consistent with the holding in Perez."

We remand both of these matters to the DOC for further proceedings in accordance with Perez. At that time, a record may also be developed concerning the various items as to which the State suggested a limited remand in Canty. We choose not to definitively decide, as the State urges in Sainvallier, whether depreciated value is a proper measure of damages in these cases. While we agree that such a valuation for personal property is acceptable, we note the reality that prison inmates do not generally have unlimited funds and it may be impossible for them to find a replacement for an older yet adequately functioning item for its depreciated value. We have noted that "market value" does not always provide a reliable guide, and that there are instances where the "actual or intrinsic value of the property to the owner, excluding sentimental or fanciful value," is the proper measure of damages. Lane v. Oil Delivery, Inc., 216 N.J. Super. 413, 419 (App. Div. 1987). "While the element of original cost is relevant, depreciation, age, wear and tear, condition, cost of replacement and cost of repair are all factors to be considered in assessing the damages sustained." Id. at 420. We trust that DOC will keep these principles and the realities of prison life in mind when fixing valuations.

Remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

 

These cases were calendared back-to-back but are consolidated for purposes of opinion only.

We agreed with the State that the Law Division actions were properly dismissed. However, we elected to treat the appeal as being from the administrative agency (DOC) decision.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2799-05T2

 

December 4, 2006