New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WOODSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-040, Claim No. 105229, Motion No. M-66812


Synopsis


Inmate's claim was dismissed for failure to serve on defendant.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-040
Claimant(s):
RONALD A. WOODSON, III
Claimant short name:
WOODSON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
105229
Motion number(s):
M-66812
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Ronald A. Woodson, III
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 11, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Ronald A. Woodson, III on the ground that the claim was not served on the State. In his underlying claim, Mr. Woodson alleges that he was wrongfully given a misbehavior report, had a "trailer date" canceled and was charged a $5.00 surcharge. The claim was filed on November 19, 2001. No dates are referred to in the claim other than an allegation that on October 14, 2001, Woodson filed a grievance. Defendant has submitted the affidavit of a senior clerk in the office of the Attorney General who states that she has made a thorough search of the records and that this claim was not served on the Attorney General. See the May 6, 2003 affidavit of Carol A. McKay. Claimant does not dispute that he failed to serve the Attorney General, having submitted no opposition papers on this motion. No answer was filed in this case.

Section 11 of the Court of Claims Act requires service of a claim upon the Attorney General, either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. "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). In short, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Woodson's claim by virtue of his failure to serve the claim on the Attorney General.

Accordingly, having reviewed the parties' submissions, [1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-66812 be granted and claim no. 105229 be dismissed.


June 11, 2003
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Along with the claim, the Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support, the affidavit of Carol A. McKay and Exhibit A; and claimant's May 16, 2003 letter inquiring as to the nature of this motion, to which the Court responded in a May 20, 2003 letter. Claimant submitted no opposition papers on the motion.