New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VEGA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-031-035, Claim No. 101962-A, Motion No. M-66510


Synopsis


Claimant failed to serve claim upon Defendant. Defendant's motion for dismissal of the claim granted.

Case Information

UID:
2003-031-035
Claimant(s):
WILFREDO VEGA
Claimant short name:
VEGA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101962-A
Motion number(s):
M-66510
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Claimant's attorney:
WILFREDO VEGA, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
New York State Attorney General
BY: WILLIAM D. LONERGAN, ESQ.Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 26, 2003
City:
Rochester
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers, numbered 1 to 3, were read on motion by Defendant for dismissal of the claim:
1) Defendant's Notice of Motion, filed March 7, 2003;
2) Affidavit of William D. Lonergan, Esq., sworn to March 6, 2003;
  1. Affidavit of Janet A. Barringer, sworn to March 3, 2003, with attached exhibit.
Upon the foregoing papers, Defendant's motion is granted. With this motion, Defendant seeks dismissal of the claim based upon Claimant's failure to serve his claim upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested as required by Court of Claims Act § 11(a). Defendant has submitted the affidavit of Janet A. Barringer, a clerk in the Litigation Bureau of the Office of the Attorney General, which indicates that Claimant has failed to serve the claim upon the Attorney General.

Claimant has not responded to Defendant's motion and, therefore, Ms. Barringer's assertions are undisputed.

Court of Claims Act § 11(a) provides, in relevant part, that a copy of the claim at issue "shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general." The requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 are jurisdictional in nature and, as such, must be strictly construed (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722; Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats v State of New York, 270 AD2d 687). The Court is not free to disregard this requirement. "[D]iscretion, equity, or a harsh result may not temper application of a rule of law" (Martin v State of New York, 185 Misc 2d 799, 804).

Claimant has failed to meet the literal requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11. Claimant failed to effect service of the claim upon the Attorney General, and the claim must therefore be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for dismissal of the claim is granted and the claim is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

June 26, 2003
Rochester, New York

HON. RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims