New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JOSEPH v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-016-062, Claim No. 109457, Motion No. M-68764


Claim was dismissed as failing to comply with §11 of the Court of Claims Act

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

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

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Carmie Joseph
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Grace A. Brannigan, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 4, 2004
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Carmie Joseph on the ground that it was untimely served and filed. It is difficult to discern the nature of the claim, but it appears to relate to the misappropriation of funds by Ms. Joseph's former attorney. Aside from the issue of timeliness, another issue must be addressed here - - whether the claim complies with §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). Ms. Joseph states that her claim accrued on September 2, 2003 and that "[t]his Claim is served and filed within 3 years of accrual for appropriation claim[s]," apparently referring to §10.1 of the Act. Such section provides that claims for the appropriation of land by the State must be filed within three years of accrual. However, a review of Joseph's claim indicates that it has nothing to do with the appropriation of her land by the State, but rather, as set forth above, concerns the misappropriation of funds by her former attorney.

Section 11(b) of the Act provides that a "claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed." The purpose of §11 "is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts . . ." Cannon v State of New York, 163 Misc 2d 623, 626, 622 NYS2d 177, 179 (Ct Cl 1994).

From what is stated in Ms. Joseph's claim, it is impossible to determine what it is that happened, how the State is allegedly involved, or whether a cause of action valid in the Court of Claims is implicated. "Conclusory or general allegations . . . that fail to adduce the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent do not meet [the] requirements [of §11 of the Act.]" Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 767-68, 433 NYS2d 646, 648 (4th Dept 1980). In short, the claim in this case fails to meet the requirements of §11 of the Act.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-68764 be granted and claim no. 109457 be dismissed.

October 4, 2004
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibit A. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.