New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

REYES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-004-528, Claim No. 97829, Motion No. M-62016


Synopsis


State's motion to dismiss, granted.

Case Information

UID:
2000-004-528
Claimant(s):
ALEJANDRO REYES
Claimant short name:
REYES
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
97829
Motion number(s):
M-62016
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JEROME F. HANIFIN
Claimant's attorney:
ALEJANDRO REYES, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Carol A. Cocchiola, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 8, 2000
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The State moves to dismiss the Claim on the ground that Claimant has failed to comply


with the requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (a).


The following papers were considered by the Court:

Claim, filed February 18, 1998 1

Verified Answer, filed March 17, 1998 2

Notice of Motion, filed July 14, 2000 3


Affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG, in support of motion,
dated July 12, 2000, with attached exhibits 4

Affidavit of Service, sworn to July 12, 2000 5



The Claim is for damages for loss of personal property due to the alleged negligence of the State (Paper No. 1)


State's counsel affirms in pertinent part:
3. On February 10, 1998, claimant served a claim upon the Attorney General by regular mail. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the "Claim for Damages", as well as a copy of the regular mail date-stamped envelope.

4. Defendant, State of New York, answered the claim on or about March 11, 1998, asserting affirmative defenses including lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction on the ground that the claim was improperly served. A copy of the Verified Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

5. In light of the fact that the claimant failed to serve the claim either personally or by certified mail, return reciept [sic] requested, as required by Section 11 (a) of the Court of Claims Act, the claim should be dismissed.

(Paper No. 4)


Claimant has not opposed the motion.


The Court must dismiss the Claim as service by regular mail is improper under Court of Claims Act § 11 (a). The filing and service requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and, therefore, must be strictly construed (see Greenspan Bros. v State of New York, 122 AD2d 249; Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782 lv denied 64 NY2d 607). Defendant raised the "objection" with particularity in its Verified Answer as required (Paper No. 2) (see, Court of Claims Act § 11 [c]; Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims, 22 NYCRR § 206.7 [a]).


ORDERED that the State's Motion No. M-62016 is GRANTED, and Claim No. 97829 is DISMISSED.


August 8, 2000
Binghamton, New York

HON. JEROME F. HANIFIN
Judge of the Court of Claims