New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACOBS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-007, Claim No. 103440, Motion No. M-62878


Synopsis


Pro se claim served by regular mail was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2001-016-007
Claimant(s):
ALONZO JACOBS
Claimant short name:
JACOBS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103440
Motion number(s):
M-62878
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Alonzo Jacobs
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: James E. Shoemaker, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 1, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

A variety of allegations are made in the underlying claim of Alonzo Jacobs. Among other things, he alleges that he slipped and fell because of a leaking toilet in his cell, that he was denied tobacco to which he was entitled, and that correction officers conspired to file a fraudulent misbehavior report against him. This is defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Jacobs' claim was served by regular mail and was untimely. Section 11.a of the Court of Claims Act provides that a claim must be served on the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Jacobs concedes that his claim was served by regular mail, and he thus failed to comply with §11.a.

"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). This Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Jacobs' claim and the remaining ground for defendant's motion need not be reached.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-62878 is granted and claim no. 103440 is dismissed.


February 1, 2001
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Along with the pleadings, the Court reviewed the following: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and Exhibits A-D; and claimant's "Reply to Motion to Dismiss Claim."