New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MILLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-013, Claim No. 103014-A, Motion No. M-62488


Synopsis


Pro se claim alleging wrongful conviction of criminal charges was dismissed as it was served by regular mail.

Case Information

UID:
2001-016-013
Claimant(s):
LEROY MILLER
Claimant short name:
MILLER
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
103014-A
Motion number(s):
M-62488
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Leroy Miller On November 20, 2000, claimant wrote to the Court stating that he had a lawyer who was reviewing his papers. Accordingly, the return date of this motion was adjourned from November 15, 2000 to February 21, 2001. However, no lawyer made an appearance or filed any papers in connection with this motion.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 23, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, Leroy Miller asserts that he was wrongly convicted of criminal charges. This is defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction as the 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. Miller 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 Miller's 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-62488 is granted and claim no. 103014-A is dismissed.



February 23, 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 Exhibit A; and claimant's untitled response filed on January 10, 2001.