New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEYER v. QUEENS COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-215, Claim No. 98937, Motion No. M-64023


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed for lack of service on Attorney General.

Case Information

UID:
2001-016-215
Claimant(s):
LEON R. MEYER
Claimant short name:
MEYER
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
QUEENS COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
98937
Motion number(s):
M-64023
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Leon R. Meyer
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 7, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is a motion to dismiss the claim of Leon R. Meyer for untimely service and filing. In his claim, Meyer alleges that because of defendant's negligence, his car was damaged when it hit a chain blocking a roadway on the Queens College campus. Meyer's accident occurred on April 1, 1998, after which he served his claim on the City University of New York ("CUNY") on June 1, 1998 and filed it with the Clerk of the Court on September 10, 1998. The Attorney General was served on July 27, 2001.

Section 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act requires that a claim such as this one must be both filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on defendants within ninety days of accrual. While Meyer did serve CUNY within 90 days of the incident, he failed to file the claim with the Clerk in that time period. Nor did he serve the Attorney General within 90 days.

"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 Meyer's claim by virtue of his failure to timely file the claim with the Clerk of the Court and timely serve the Attorney General.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions, [1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64023 be granted and claim no. 98937 be dismissed.


January 7, 2002
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B; and claimant's submissions dated November 15, 2001 and November 28, 2001.