New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-006-967, Claim No. 99958, Motion No. M-63197


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2001-006-967
Claimant(s):
MARK JACKSON
Claimant short name:
JACKSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
99958
Motion number(s):
M-63197
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
EDGAR C. NeMOYER
Claimant's attorney:
MARK JACKSON, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: Thomas G. Ramsay, Esq.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 28, 2001
City:
Buffalo
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion for an order of this court dismissing the claim pursuant to CPLR rule 3211 (a)(8) on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the claim. In deciding this motion the court has read and reviewed the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated March 8, 2001 and filed March 12, 2001.
  1. Affirmation of Thomas G. Ramsay, Assistant Attorney General dated March 8, 2001, along with Exhibit A attached thereto, in support of the motion.
  1. Claim verified March 6, 1999 and filed March 10,1999.
  1. Answer verified April 14, 1999 and filed April 16, 1999.
This claim appears to have arisen on or about January 18, 1999 while claimant was at Livingston Correctional Facility (LCF) awaiting a court appearance. Claimant alleges he was transported to LCF on January 12, 1999 in order to permit him to appear in New York State Family Court. According to claimant, upon his arrival at LCF he was housed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU), which deprived him of various privileges and rights. Claimant states he was confined to the SHU for seven days. It is claimant's position his assignment to the SHU constituted and unlawful confinement.

By this motion to dismiss, the defendant alleges that the claim was served upon the Attorney General by regular mail, and therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction of the claim. The third affirmative defense of the defendant's answer sets forth this jurisdictional objection with particularity. Therefore, defendant is in compliance with Section 11(c) of the Court of Claims Act and has not waived this jurisdictional objection.

In support of its allegation that the claim was served by regular mail, defendant has attached to its motion papers, as Exhibit A, a copy of the envelope in which the claim was received by the Attorney General. This envelope shows a postmark of March 8, 1999, with postage of 55 cents. This postage would indicate mailing by regular mail. The envelope bears no indicia of mailing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the claimant served the Attorney General with the claim by regular mail.

Section 11(a) of the Court of Claims Act requires the claim to be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. A claim which is not served in this manner is subject to dismissal because of the absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Turley v State of New York, __ AD2d __, 719 NYS2d 380; Adkison v State of New York, 226 AD2d 409; Bogel v State of New York, 175 AD2d 493; Baggett v State of New York, 124 AD2d 969.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the motion of the defendant is hereby granted and the claim is dismissed.


March 28, 2001
Buffalo, New York

HON. EDGAR C. NEMOYER
Judge of the Court of Claims