New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ANEKWE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-030-520, Claim No. 106939, Motion No. M-66137


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2003-030-520
Claimant(s):
PETER ANEKWE
Claimant short name:
ANEKWE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106939
Motion number(s):
M-66137
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
PETER ANEKWE, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERALBY: J. GARDNER RYAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March , 2003
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers number 1 to 5 were read on Defendant's motion to dismiss brought


pursuant to §3211(a)(4) Civil Practice Law and Rules and Court of Claims Act §§10 and 11, on


the ground that the claim was not timely filed:

1,2 Notice of Motion, Affirmation by J. Gardner Ryan, Assistant Attorney General and accompanying exhibit

3,4 Affirmation (sic) in Reply by Peter Anekwe, Claimant, and accompanying exhibit

  1. Filed Paper: Claim
After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion is disposed of as follows:

Claimant alleges in Claim Number 106939 that Defendant's agents wrongfully confined him while he was an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility (hereafter Green Haven). According to the Claim, Claimant was given pre-hearing detention on March 21, 2002, pending the determination of a Tier II disciplinary hearing. The hearing was held on April 13, 2002, and the charges were dismissed on April 16, 2002. [Claim No. 106939, Paragraph Second]. Although it is not stated in the Claim, a review of the documents annexed to the Claim shows that Claimant was released from keeplock on that date. Thereafter, Claimant filed a grievance seeking compensation for the days he was confined pending the disciplinary hearing. On August 14, 2002, he received payment for the period he was confined and unable to work.

A notice of intention to file a claim in this Court was served on the Attorney General on September 30, 2002. [Affirmation of J. Gardner Ryan, Exhibit A]. The Claim itself was served on November 8, 2002, and seeks monetary compensation for the three (3) days of wrongful confinement in the amount of $1,000 per day. [Id].

A claim alleging wrongful confinement accrues when the period of wrongful confinement ends [See, Ramirez v State of New York, 171 Misc 2d 677, 680 (Ct Cl 1997)], and the damages sustained are reasonably ascertainable. In this case, Claimant was released from confinement on April 16, 2002. In order to preserve his ability to pursue a damages claim in this Court, either a Notice of Intention or a claim should have been served within ninety (90) days of that date, or July 16, 2002. Court of Claims Act §§10 and 11. The Notice of Intention here was not served until September 30, 2002, and the Claim was not served and filed until November 8, 2002.

The filing and service requirements contained in §§10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed. Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722-723 (1989); See, also, Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 729 NYS2d 527, 529 (2d Dept 2001); Conner v State of New York, 268 AD2d 706, 707 (3d Dept 2000). Indeed, the statute provides in pertinent part "...[n]o judgment shall be granted in favor of any claimant unless such claimant shall have complied with the provisions of this section applicable to his claim...." Court of Claims Act §10. Defendant has properly raised the issue in this pre-Answer motion, thus there has been no waiver. Court of Claims Act §11(c); C.f., Vogel v State of New York, 187 Misc 2d 186 (Ct Cl 2000). This Court does not have jurisdiction over the claim since it was not served and filed within the statutory time frame.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss based upon the untimeliness of the claim filed herein is hereby granted, and Claim Number 106939 is dismissed in its entirety.

March , 2003
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims