New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ADAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-028-0509, Claim No. 100019, Motion No. M-62483


Synopsis


Claim of pro se inmate is dismissed because it was neither filed nor served within 90 days of its accrual.

Case Information

UID:
2001-028-0509
Claimant(s):
WILLIE ADAMS
Claimant short name:
ADAMS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100019
Motion number(s):
M-62483
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RICHARD E. SISE
Claimant's attorney:
WILLIE ADAMS, pro se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Eileen E. Bryant, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 4, 2001
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on defendant's motion for an order of dismissal.

1. Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation of Eileen E. Bryant, AAG, filed October 3, 2000, with annexed Exhibits A-C ("Bryant affirmation")


2. Affidavit in Opposition: none received


3. Filed papers: Claim, filed March 19, 1999; Answer, filed April 27, 1999


This claim arose on March 10, 1997 at Coxsackie Correctional Facility when, it is alleged, claimant arrived at that facility, was issued his property, and discovered that a cassette player and ten packs of cigarettes were missing. Claimant subsequently filed an institutional claim but, he states, received no response. He asserts that he filed an "application of intent to file" (notice of intention to file a claim) on April 21, 1997.

In its answer, the State of New York raised, among others, the following affirmative defenses:

First Defense:

The claim was not filed within 90 days after it accrued, as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10(3), 10(3-b) and 11, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claim.

Second Defense:

Neither the notice of intention nor the claim was served within 90 days after the claim accrued, as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10(3), 10(3-b) and 11, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claim and personal jurisdiction over the State.

These statements are sufficiently particular to provide notice of the defense of untimeliness in that they include (1) reference to the time period within which the filing (and/or service) should have occurred and (2) the statutory authority for such requirement (see, Smith v State of New York, Claim No. 85799, Motion No. M-48029, filed July 20, 1993, Benza, J.; Kanaval v State of New York, Claim No. 86053, Motion No. M-47990, filed July 20, 1993, Benza, J.).

Defendant now moves to dismiss this claim on the ground of untimeliness. Both a notice of intention and the claim was received by the office of the Attorney General on March 19, 1999 (Exh A, Bryant affirmation) and, as noted above, a copy of the claim was filed with the Court on the same date. A review of the Court's file does not reveal any notice of intention, or any other submission, prior to March 1999. The ninetieth day after March 10, 1997 was June 8, 1997, and thus the claim was filed and served in an untimely manner. The time and manner of service requirements contained in the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (Selkirk v State of New York, 249 AD2d 818), and consequently the claim must be dismissed. Claimant's only recourse is to seek permission to file an untimely claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act §10(6).




January 4, 2001
Albany, New York

HON. RICHARD E. SISE
Judge of the Court of Claims