MAZARIEGO v. STATE (2025)

Claimant Joni Mazariego, an incarcerated individual, seeks to recover for injuries he suffered when he was electrocuted after unplugging a hot box while working in the mess hall at Clinton Correctional Facility in February 2019. Claimant alleges that corrections officials knew or should have known that the hot box was defective or in dangerous condition. In addition to his testimony, claimant offered several exhibits, all of which were received in evidence. Defendant proffered the testimony of the facility's head cook, as well as several exhibits which were also received in evidence.¹ After considering the evidence presented at trial, as well as the applicable law, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Claimant testified on his own behalf, with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the Court. Claimant is an incarcerated individual in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and, in 2019, was housed at the Clinton Correctional Facility Annex. Claimant had worked in the Annex mess hall five days a week since 2015, and soon after his arrival there was promoted to "food runner."² A food runner's duties would include placing the prepared hot food trays in hot boxes and then unplugging and moving the hot boxes from the kitchen to the food line where other incarcerated individuals were served their meals. A hot box is a large appliance used to keep food being served warm (see Exh D). Hot foods would be placed in a hot box, which would then be unplugged and rolled to the food service line and plugged back in to other outlets in that area. The Clinton Annex mess hall had several hot boxes available to use, "about five" according to claimant, and there was a row of outlets where they were usually plugged in. Two or three hot boxes would be used for any given meal service, and claimant used the hot boxes and the outlets every day he worked in the kitchen, both for breakfast and lunch.

On February 14, 2019, at approximately 6:00 a.m., claimant was electrocuted by one of the hot boxes in the kitchen when he was unplugging it to roll it over to the serving line (see Exh A; Exh B, at 13-16). As claimant grabbed the plug to pull it out of the outlet (see Exh D), he received an electrical shock in between the thumb and index finger of his right hand. The force of the shock pushed him back and burned his hand. His rubber glove was scorched, and he could not move his fingers. He immediately became dizzy and felt heart palpitations. Claimant was taken to the infirmary where he reported that his fingers were numb and that he had a sharp pain running from his fingers up to his elbow (see Exh A). Claimant did not know who had initially plugged in the hot box he was attempting to disconnect, and he did not see anything wrong with the hot box or the outlet before he tried to unplug the appliance. In all his time working in the kitchen at Clinton Annex, claimant had never before received, nor personally observed anyone else receive, an electrical shock while using a hot box. However, he had sometimes previously seen sparks when plugging and unplugging hot boxes at various times. Anytime claimant and others working in the mess hall observed something wrong with the hot boxes, they would inform facility personnel who would arrange the necessary repairs. Claimant never personally observed other regular maintenance of the hot boxes, however. Claimant filed a grievance after the incident related to his treatment (see Exh 5), which was granted in part (see Exh B). The Court found claimant's testimony to be earnest, sincere, and entirely credible. Indeed, claimant's testimony about how the accident occurred and that he received an electrical shock from the hot box he was using on February 14, 2019 was corroborated by the documentary evidence and unrebutted.

Defendant called Richard Couture, Jr., who at the time of trial had worked at DOCCS for approximately 28 years at either Clinton or Clinton Annex. The Court also found Couture's testimony to be forthright and credible. At the time of the incident, Couture was the head cook at the Clinton Annex kitchen. In addition to ordering and cooking food, and supervising mess hall workers, another of Couture's job responsibilities was facilitating requests for the maintenance and repair of kitchen equipment like the hot boxes. If there was a problem or a repair was needed, kitchen staff would take the equipment out of service and submit a work order to the maintenance department. Couture kept a folder on his desk containing copies of active work orders relating to the mess hall which were awaiting service by the maintenance department. Once the kitchen staff received written confirmation from maintenance that the repair had been completed, the work order would be moved to the inactive file and the equipment would be returned to service. Any equipment needing repair would not be placed back into service unless and until the necessary repair was completed; if it could not be repaired, it was disposed of. Over the nearly three decades he has worked at DOCCS, Couture has seen "plenty" of new hot boxes be purchased for use in the mess hall, although he did not know the exact number.

Several of the kitchen equipment work orders received in evidence related to repair or service of the mess hall's various hot boxes before the incident (see Exhs 1-4; Exh C). These particular work orders were requested by Couture. On June 10, 2018, the hot box "in the diet area behind line #1" was reported as "not working," and it was repaired two days later (Exh 1; Exh C, at 7). Although the work order did not specify the hot box number, Couture explained that this particular hot box was stationary and remained in the special diet area only. On July 14, 2018, an unspecified hot box was reported as "out of order" and the "on/off" switch was replaced within two days (Exh 2; Exh C, at 9). No other work orders or any other documentation related to problems with any hot boxes between July 2018 and the date of the incident were proffered, and Couture was not aware of any such work orders during this time frame. Although one of the work orders in evidence, dated July 15, 2018, referenced an appliance that was "shocking at the touch" and had to have "broken wires" replaced, the work order did not involve a hot box; rather, it was a repair request related to the "hot table" at "[l]ine #2" (Exh 3; Exh C, at 8). Couture explained that this was an entirely different type of equipment from the hot boxes. This repair was also completed two days after being reported.

After claimant's accident on February 14, 2019, Couture prepared a work order that same date for what he described as the malfunctioning "Hot Box #4" plug that needed to be repaired (Exh 4; Exh C, at 6). Couture acknowledged that the hot box that injured claimant could be described as defective on the date that it malfunctioned, as it had been in the Accident / Injury Investigation Report prepared by the facility (see Exh A), but credibly testified that he was unaware of any prior issues with either the specific hot box or outlet that injured claimant, including within the 30 days prior to the accident, or any work orders for same. If he had been made aware of any prior problems with the hot box or outlet sparking, he explained that he would have immediately taken the hot box out of service or covered up the outlet, and put in a work order to notify maintenance, per his usual practice.

Initially, there is no dispute that the incident happened exactly as claimant testified, or that he was shocked by an electrical current that burned his hand and caused him pain. But even crediting his testimony in full, claimant failed to establish his claim of negligence because he did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant knew or should have known of the existence of a dangerous condition with respect to the specific hot box that malfunctioned and injured claimant.

Like any landowner, the State has "a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to maintain [its] property in a safe condition" (Tagle v Jakob, 97 NY2d 165, 168 [2001], citing Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 [1976]; see Preston v State of New York, 59 NY2d 997, 998 [1983]). In addition, the State has a "duty to provide [incarcerated individuals] engaged in work programs with reasonably safe equipment and sufficient warnings and instructions for safe operation of the equipment" (Manganaro v State of New York, 24 AD3d 1003, 1004 [3d Dept 2005], citing Muhammad v State of New York, 15 AD3d 807, 808 [3d Dept 2005]; see Letterese v State of New York, 33 AD3d 593, 593 [2d Dept 2006]). However, the State "is not an insurer of [incarcerated individual] safety, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the happening of an incident" (Muhammad, 15 AD3d at 808; see Condon v State of New York, 193 AD2d 874, 874 [3d Dept 1993], citing Killeen v State of New York, 66 NY2d 850, 851 [1985]). Thus, to recover for injuries caused by a dangerous condition or defective equipment at a prison work site, the claimant must demonstrate that the State created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition (see Rios v State of New York, UID No. 2016-041-510 [Ct Cl, Nov. 1, 2016] [Milano, J.], citing Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2011]; Perkins v State of New York, UID No. 2000-010-048 [Ct Cl, Aug. 11, 2000] [Ruderman, J.]; see also Callahan v State of New York, 19 AD2d 437, 438 [3d Dept 1963] [finding liability where the State "knew( ) or should have known" that safety equipment used by incarcerated individual at work was "defective and inadequate"], affd 14 NY2d 665 [1964]). "To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it" (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]).

Here, claimant failed to establish that defendant breached a duty owed to claimant. Although the evidence offered at trial supports a conclusion that the plug of the hot box that injured claimant—hot box #4—was defective on the date of the incident, claimant failed to make the necessary showing that defendant had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition affecting that hot box. Contrary to claimant's contentions, Couture's "general awareness" that hot boxes at Clinton have previously needed repairs or had electrical problems is insufficient to establish notice of the specific issue with hot box #4 that caused claimant's injury (Gordon, 67 NY2d at 838). Moreover, the three pre-accident work order requests offered into evidence—all of which are dated 7 or 8 months before the claim arose—do not establish that defendant knew or should have known about the defect. As Couture explained, the request dated June 10, 2018 pertained to the stationary hot box in the diet area—not hot box #4—and, moreover, merely states the hot box was "not working" and does not specifically document a dangerous electrical condition (Exh 1). The request dated July 14, 2018 states only that an unspecified hot box was "out of order" and indicates that the problem was fixed by replacing the "on/off" switch two days later (Exh 2). And although the request dated July 15, 2018 provides evidence of a dangerous electrical condition affecting a "Hot Table," Couture explained that a hot table was a different piece of equipment altogether, and the work order shows that this condition was also repaired within two days in any event (Exh 3). Couture credibly testified that he was not aware of any other problems with the hot boxes that were reported between July 2018 and the date of the accident.

Further, Couture's testimony and the documentary evidence generally established that problems with kitchen equipment were reported the day they were discovered, and defective equipment was immediately taken out of service to be repaired. Thus, had there been any visible or apparent signs of a problem with hot box #4—such as sparking near the plug—for any appreciable amount of time before the accident, it is likely that the equipment would have been promptly removed from the kitchen. Contrary to the conclusory assertion made in claimant's post-trial brief, there was no evidence at trial suggesting that facility maintenance staff were "always behind" on work orders (Cl's Post-Trial Brief, at 2).

In sum, claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant breached its duty to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition, or to provide reasonably safe work equipment. Therefore, Claim No. 135349 is DISMISSED.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Claimant's exhibits 1 through 5, and defendant's exhibits A though F were admitted into evidence upon the parties' consent and stipulation.

2.   Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations are from the audio recording of the trial of this claim.

Zainab A. Chaudhry, J.