New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DIAZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-010-002, Claim No. 106323


Synopsis


Inmate's claim seeking damages for his fall in a shower stall while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correction Facility is dismissed due to his untimely service of the claim upon the attorney general's office.

Case Information

UID:
2003-010-002
Claimant(s):
SEVERINO DIAZ
Claimant short name:
DIAZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106323
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
SEVERINO DIAZPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 29, 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for injuries he allegedly sustained on July 15, 2001 during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility when he allegedly fell in the shower and broke his jaw. Claimant testified that the ceramic tiles in the shower were slippery and that he fell because there are no mats or safety bars.
A claim to recover damages for personal injuries must be filed within 90 days of accrual unless
claimant serves a notice of intention to file a claim upon the attorney general within such time (Court of Claims Act, § 10[3]). "Service by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general shall not be complete until the claim or notice of intention is received in the office of the attorney general" (emphasis added)(Court of Claims Act, § 11). Claimant's notice of intention was not received by the attorney general until October 19, 2001, which was beyond the 90 day period. Defendant raised, with sufficient particularity in its answer, the affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction due to claimant's failure to timely serve the notice of intention (Answer, ¶ 11).
The requirements of the Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance (
see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is now GRANTED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 106323.

January 29, 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims