New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DIAZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-030-507, Claim No. 106596, Motion No. M-67568


Synopsis


Case Information

UID:
2004-030-507
Claimant(s):
FRANK DIAZ, JR.
Claimant short name:
DIAZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106596
Motion number(s):
M-67568
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant's attorney:
SACKS & SACKS, LLPBY: DONNA R. SILVERGLAD, ESQ.
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLPJAMES P. TYRIE, ESQ. OF COUNSEL
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 17, 2004
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers numbered 1 to 4 were read and considered on the Order to Show


Cause returnable December 15, 2003 and issued by the Court on October 24, 2003:

  1. Order to Show Cause
  1. Letter from Sacks and Sacks LLP, Counsel for the Claimant, by Donna R. Silverglad dated December 1, 2003, with attached Affidavits of Service and copy of Answer dated December 23, 2002
3,4 Filed Papers: Claim, Answer

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the Order to Show Cause is disposed of as follows:

Given the apparent failure of Claimant to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act §11, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause returnable December 15, 2003 to require the Claimant to establish whether he had obtained jurisdiction over the State of New York. When the Order to Show Cause was issued, although an affidavit of service of the Claim upon the Office of the Attorney General had been filed with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims, no Answer had been filed. [See 22 NYCRR §§206.5; 206.7]. In the interim it appears that an Answer has been filed with the Office of the Clerk as of November 20, 2003, reflecting service upon the Claimant on December 24, 2002. The Court notes that the Answer does not raise any jurisdictional issues. In any event, issue has been joined.

Accordingly, Claimant has satisfactorily established that he has obtained jurisdiction over the State of New York, the Order to Show Cause issued by this Court is hereby resolved, and dismissal of the Claim on these grounds is hereby denied. Counsel are reminded to review the practice provisions of the Court of Claims Act as well as the parts of the Uniform Trial Court Rules applicable in this Court.

February 17, 2004
White Plains, New York

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