New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-016-026, Claim No. 97798, Motion No. M-61546


Synopsis


Pro se claimant's claim dismissed as notice of intention and claim were untimely served.

Case Information

UID:
2000-016-026
Claimant(s):
ERNEST LOTT
Claimant short name:
LOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
97798
Motion number(s):
M-61546
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Ernest Lott
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 19, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, pro se claimant Ernest Lott alleges that on October 31, 1997 he burned his arm "as a result of a heating system that is much too close to the sleeping area . . ." This is defendant's motion to dismiss Lott's claim on the ground that his notice of intention and claim were not timely served. On February 2, 1998, Lott served defendant with both a notice of intention and a claim; they were sent in the same envelope by certified mail, return receipt requested. See ¶3 of the April 12, 2000 affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola and Exhibits A and B thereto.

Section 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act provides that with regard to claims such as this one, either the claim itself or a notice of intention to file a claim must be filed within 90 days of accrual of the claim. In this case, the claim accrued on October 31, 1997. Service of Lott's notice of intention and claim occurred more than 90 days later, on February 2, 1998.

"It is well established that compliance with sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act pertaining to the timeliness of filing and service requirements respecting claims and notices of intention to file claims constitutes a jurisdictional prerequisite to the institution and maintenance of a claim against the State, and accordingly, must be strictly construed . . ." Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782, 783, 480 NYS2d 225, 227 (2d Dept 1984), lv denied, 64 NY2d 607, 488 NYS2d 1023 (1985) (citations omitted). In short, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Lott's claim.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion is granted and the claim of Ernest Lott is dismissed.


May 19, 2000
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]Aside from the pleadings, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with supporting affirmation and Exhibits A-C. Claimant filed no opposition papers.