New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JACKSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK and FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, #2002-011-516, Claim No. 104973, Motion No. M-64494


Synopsis


Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was served by regular mail and not in a manner prescribed by Court of Claims Act§11 is granted.

Case Information

UID:
2002-011-516
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL T. JACKSON, 00 A 2474
Claimant short name:
JACKSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK and FRANKLIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104973
Motion number(s):
M-64494
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Michael T. Jackson, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Eileen E. Bryant, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 19, 2002
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Defendant has moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was served by regular mailand not in a manner prescribed by Court of Claims Act §11.

The use of ordinary mail to serve the claim upon the Attorney General is insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the State (Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827). Though claimant acknowledges that the claim was served by regular mail, he argues that certified mail receipts were not available when he mailed the claim. He alleges that he wrote the words "please acknowledge receipt" on the envelope and dropped it in the facility mailbox indicating that it should be sent by certified mail return receipt requested. His argument that the State should be estopped from raising the failure to properly serve the claim must, however, be rejected. The claim is one to recover for loss of personal property by an inmate. Thus, it was required to be served within 120 days after claimant had exhausted his available administrative remedy (Court of Claims Act §10[9]). According to claimant, exhaustion occurred on September 13, 2001. The envelope in which the claim was mailed is postmarked November 9, 2001 at which time more than sixty days remained to timely serve the claim. Claimant cannot escape the statutory requirement regarding the manner of service by simply asserting that certified mail return receipt material was not available on the day he elected to mail the claim (see, Philippe v State of New York, supra). Some connection must be made between his reliance on the State to provide certified mail return-receipt material and his inability to timely serve the claim in the manner required by the statute. Inasmuch as claimant has failed to do so, the State should not be estopped from asserting its rights under the statute. Accordingly, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.



February 19, 2002
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims


  1. Notice of Motion to Dismiss dated December 19, 2001
  2. Affirmation in Support of Eileen E. Bryant, Esq. dated December 18, 2001 with attachment
  3. Affidavit in Opposition of Michael T. Jackson sworn to the 17th day of January, 2002