New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHAW v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-012, Claim No. 103948, Motion No. M-65870


Claim was dismissed as failing to comply with §11 of the Court of Claims Act

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:
Mikel J. Hoffman, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: John M. Shields, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 26, 2003
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Kathleen Shaw on the grounds that it fails to comply with §11.b of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). In her claim, Ms. Shaw asserts that because of defendant's negligence, she slipped and fell "in the vicinity of the parking lot of Jones Beach Theater . . ." Her notice of intention is similarly spare in terms of location, stating that the accident occurred "while walking from the parking area, toward the Jones Beach Theater. . ." See exhibit A to the September 30, 2002 affirmation of John M. Shields, Esq., AAG. Section 11.b of the Act provides that a "claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed." See Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 625, 622 NYS2d 177, 178 (Ct Cl 1994) (citation omitted) in which it was stated that "[t]he claim must plead the facts relied upon to sustain a recovery. In addition it must set forth a valid cause of action . . ." The purpose of §11 of the Act "is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts . . ." Id., 163 Misc 2d at 626, 622 NYS2d at 179.

In this case, the claim and the notice of intention contain no specifics as to where in the parking lot Shaw's accident occurred, such as measurements or reference points.

In Ms. Shaw's opposition papers, she states that the accident occurred on a "walkway" that defendant created by placing wooden "horses" in the parking lot. She also attaches photographs to her papers and she argues that defendant had notice of the incident because an accident report was prepared. However, where jurisdiction is implicated, defendant is not required to go beyond the four corners of the claim to ascertain information which should have been provided in the claim itself. See, e.g., Schneider v State of New York, Ct Cl filed 9/14/95, Silverman, J. (unreported, claim no. 91422, motion no. M-51856, cross-motion no. CM-52045).

In sum, Shaw's claim fails to comply with §11 of the Court of Claims Act and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim. See, e.g., Griffen v State of New York, Ct Cl dated 5/19/00, Marin, J. (unreported, claim no. 97707, motion no. M-61634). Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65870 be granted and claim no. 103948 be dismissed.

February 26, 2003
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 with exhibits A and B; and claimant's affidavit in opposition along with claimant's counsel's affirmation with exhibits A-D.