New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RICHARDSON v. JOHN P. KEANE, ETC., SUPERINTENDENT, #2002-016-048, Claim No. 105226, Motion No. M-64595


Claim served by regular mail was dismissed on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Anthony Richardson
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: James E. Shoemaker, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 14, 2002
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Anthony Richardson on the grounds that it was served by regular mail. In his claim, Richardson asserts that because of defendant's negligence, he slipped and fell in a bathroom at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. Richardson's claim was served by regular mail. See ¶7 of the January 16, 2002 affirmation of James E. Shoemaker (the "Shoemaker Aff.") and exhibit B thereto. 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. Regular mail is not an authorized method of service.

"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).

Richardson states that he requested that his claim be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, but that that "was not done as we're all aware of when anything is addressed to the Attorney General's office . . . The facility would be the ones to blame. . . . because my claim is against this facility that . . .[I] have to trust to send my claim out certified return receipt on the opposing attorney who . . . represent[s] this facility." First, it should be noted that Richardson's request to have his notice of intention served by certified mail, return receipt requested was heeded. See Exhibit A to the Shoemaker Aff. Moreover, aside from his general contentions, Richardson has presented no specifics regarding his alleged request to have his claim in this case served by certified mail, return receipt requested, e.g., an explanation of the procedure for requesting certified mail, return receipt requested, when his request was made, etc.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-64595 be granted and claim no. 105226 be dismissed.

May 14, 2002
New York, New York

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 letter dated February 15, 2002.