New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BARROWS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-011-554, Claim No. 100286 and 100299, Motion No. M-61729 and M-61730


Synopsis


Defendant's motions to dismiss two claims on the basis that they were not served within ninety days of accrual as required by CCA§10 are granted.

Case Information

UID:
2000-011-554
Claimant(s):
JAMES BARROWS
Claimant short name:
BARROWS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100286 and 100299
Motion number(s):
M-61729 and M-61730
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
James Barrows, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General(Eileen E. Bryant, Esq., Assistant Attorney General)
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 16, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Defendant has moved to dismiss these claims on the basis that they were not served within ninety days of accrual as required by Court of Claims Act §10. Under Court of Claims Act §10(3), a claim based upon an unintentional tort, such as is alleged in both claims, must be filed within ninety days of accrual unless a notice of intention is filed within that time and then the claim may be filed within two years of accrual.

The claims arise from incidents alleged to have occurred on September 30, 1998 (Claim No. 100299) and November 16, 1998 (Claim No. 100286). A notice of intention in Claim No. 100299 was received in the office of the Attorney General on December 30, 1998 and in Claim No. 100286 the notice of intention was received on February 26, 1999. The claim in Claim No. 100299 was received by the Attorney General on May 5, 1999 and the claim in Claim No. 100286 was received on May 3, 1999. Neither the notice of intention nor the claim in either action was served within ninety days of accrual and therefore, both claims are untimely. In an unsworn statement Claimant offers a litany of excuses as to why the claims were not timely presented. However, considering the dates of accrual and the date the first notice of intention was served, it is clear that either could have been timely served had Claimant simply been more diligent. Based upon the failure to timely serve the claims the court is without personal jurisdiction and accordingly, both claims are dismissed.


August 16, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of Motion to Dismiss (Claim No. 100286) dated May 16, 2000.
  2. Affirmation of Eileen E. Bryant, Esq., dated May 15, 2000 with exhibits annexed.
  3. Notice of Motion to Dismiss (Claim No. 100299) dated May 16, 2000.
  4. Affirmation of Eileen E. Bryant, Esq., dated May 15, 2000 with exhibits annexed.
  5. Unsworn letter of Claimant dated May 25, 2000.