New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-032-036, Claim No. 103970-C, Motion No. M-66425


When asked to provide documentary evidence regarding service of the claim, claimant failed to provide any proof that the claim was served and counsel for defendant submitted the affidavit of someone with personal knowledge establishing that the State was not served. The claim was therefore dismissed.

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):

Claimant's attorney:
Vetter G. Moore, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 10, 2003

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


By an Order to Show Cause issued by the Court on February 4, 2003, the parties were directed to address the issue of whether Claim No. 103970-C had been properly served. They were asked to do the following:

[T]o submit to the Court, in writing, a statement relating to service of this claim, making reference to and including copies of any relevant documentary evidence. Claimant should submit affidavits establishing personal service or a copy of the certified mail, return receipts evidencing proper service by that alternative method. If defendant wishes to assert that the claim was not served on the Attorney General, that statement should come from someone with personal knowledge of the contents of files and records of the Department of Law.

In response to the Order to Show Cause, counsel for defendant has submitted, in addition to his own affidavit, the affidavit of Carol A. McKay, a senior clerk in the Office of the Attorney General and the person with responsibility for keeping record of the notices of intention and claims filed with that office. She states that the only document on file with the Attorney General that relates to this claim is a copy of a May 1, 2001 letter (captioned "Corrected Letter") from the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims to claimant, acknowledging receipt of the claim and assigning the claim number (McKay affidavit, Exhibit A). Ms. McKay states that based on her review of the Attorney General's files, "I find no record that the Claim in this matter was ever served on the Attorney General" (McKay affidavit, ¶ 4). Claimant's only submission consists of two pages that contain, in part, photocopies of portions of defendant's submissions. This submission contains no substantive statement alleging that the State was properly served and no certified mail return receipt.

The Court concludes that claimant failed to serve a copy of Claim No. 103970-C on defendant. Inasmuch as the service requirements of section 11 of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and a party's failure to comply with those requirements deprives the Court of jurisdiction to hear the claim (Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724; Bogel v State of New York, 175 AD2d 493), the claim must be dismissed.

The Chief Clerk is directed to dismiss Claim No. 103970-C.

March 10, 2003
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read on the Court's motion for clarification regarding service of the claim:
1. Order to Show Caused, issued February 4, 2003

2. Affirmation of Glenn C. King, Esq., AAG, with annexed Affidavit of Carol A. McKay with Exhibit

3. Submission apparently in opposition of Vetter G Moore, pro se