New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2003-032-089, Claim No. 105695, Motion No. M-66742


When asked to provide documentary evidence regarding service of the claim, claimant satisfactorily proved that the claim had been served on defendant, and counsel for defendant filed no submission asserting that the State was not served.

Case Information

ANTHONY BROWN The caption of this action has been amended by the Court, sua sponte, to indicate that the State of New York is the only properly named defendant.
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption of this action has been amended by the Court, sua sponte, to indicate that the State of New York is the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Anthony Brown, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney General
By: Eileen Bryant, Esq., Assistant Attorney General,Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 17, 2003

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


By an Order to Show Cause issued by the Court on April 22, 2003, the parties were directed to address the issue of whether Claim No. 105695 had been properly served on the Attorney General. They were asked to do the following:

[T]o submit to the Court, in writing, a statement relating to service of this claim, making reference to and including copies of any relevant documentary evidence. Claimant should submit affidavits establishing personal service or a copy of the certified mail, return receipts evidencing proper service by that alternative method. If defendant wishes to assert that the claim was not served on the Attorney-General, that statement should come from someone with personal knowledge of the contents of files and records of the Department of Law....

In response to the Order to Show Cause, the State has made no submission, thereby implicitly conceding that it was properly served. The Court's files include certified mail return receipts showing that documents were served on and receipt acknowledged by the Attorney General on April 1, 2002. Although it is not possible to precisely identify the document to which the Post Office receipt relates, defendant has failed to challenge claimant's statement that this is the receipt card that was returned to him after service of the claim in this action. In addition, the Court notes the claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court in March 2002.

The Court concludes, therefore, that claimant served a copy of Claim No. 105695 on the Attorney General, by certified mail, return receipt requested, on April 1, 2002.

September 17, 2003
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read on the Court's motion for clarification regarding service of the claim:
1. Order to Show Cause, filed April 25, 2003

2. Submission of the Attorney General (none received)

3. Submission of Anthony Brown, pro se, with annexed exhibit