New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TEAGUE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-003, Claim No. 104390, Motion No. M-63791


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed for failure to serve and file within 90 days.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-003
Claimant(s):
BRIAN TEAGUE
Claimant short name:
TEAGUE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104390
Motion number(s):
M-63791
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Sacks & Sacks, Esqs.By: Sanford Konstadt, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Susan J. Pogoda, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 9, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Brian Teague on the grounds that it was not timely served and filed. In the underlying claim, it is asserted that on March 8, 2001, while claimant was in the course of his employment at a construction project on the Macombs Dam Bridge, he slipped and fell on water, ice, snow and other debris on a temporary stairwell. Section 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act requires that a claim such as this one be both filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the Attorney General within ninety days of accrual. It is undisputed that the claim was filed and served on June 8, 2001, 92 days after the alleged incident.

"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). See also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925, 601 NYS2d 972 (3d Dept 1993). In short, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Teague'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-63791 be granted and claim no. 104390 be dismissed.


January 9, 2002
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]The following documents were reviewed: the claim and defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A-B. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.