New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LA VAN v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, #2004-016-043, Claim No. 109164, Motion No. M-68381


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed as having been served by regular mail.

Case Information

UID:
2004-016-043
Claimant(s):
KHASIM USAMA LA VAN
Claimant short name:
LA VAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109164
Motion number(s):
M-68381
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Khasim Usama La Van
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 11, 2004
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Khasim Usama La Van on the grounds that: (1) the claim was improperly served by regular mail; and (2) the notice of intention fails to state when the claim arose. In his underlying claim, Mr. La Van alleges that because of defendant's negligence, items of his personal property were lost and damaged in connection with his transfer from Otisville Correctional Facility to Fishkill Correctional Facility. It is undisputed that La Van's claim was served by regular mail. Section 11.a of the Court of Claims Act provides that a claim must be served on the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail is not an authorized method of service and its use is insufficient to obtain jurisdiction. See, e.g., Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827, 669 NYS2d 759 (3d Dept 1998).

"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 Khasim Usama La Van's claim and the remaining ground for defendant's motion need not be reached. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[1] it is ordered that motion no. M-68381 be granted and claim no. 109164 be dismissed.



August 11, 2004
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]The Court reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits 1and 2; and claimant's affidavit in opposition.