New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PAGE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-016-049, Claim No. 107508, Motion No. M-66683


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed; notice of intention was not served within 90 days of accrual.

Case Information

UID:
2003-016-049
Claimant(s):
HARRY PAGE
Claimant short name:
PAGE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107508
Motion number(s):
M-66683
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Nishman & Savitsky, Esqs.No Appearance
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
July 1, 2003
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Harry Page on the ground that Mr. Page's notice of intention was not timely served. In the underlying claim, it is asserted that on August 5, 2002, because of defendant's negligence, claimant slipped and fell in the gym at Arthur Kill Correctional Facility. Section 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act requires that a claim such as this one be "filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim . . ." In this case, the notice of intention was served on defendant on November 6, 2002, 93 days after claimant's August 5, 2002 accident. See ¶3 of the April 11, 2003 affirmation of Grace A. Brannigan and exhibit A thereto.

"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).

In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Page's claim by virtue of his failure to timely serve his notice of intention. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[1] IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-66683 be granted and claim no. 107508 be dismissed.



July 1, 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 and exhibit A. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.