New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JENKINS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-010-059, Claim No. 109347


Synopsis


Inmate claimant's med mal case was unsubstantiated. However, the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Case Information

UID:
2005-010-059
Claimant(s):
THEODORE JENKINS
Claimant short name:
JENKINS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109347
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney:
THEODORE JENKINSPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 23, 2005
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision
Claimant seeks damages for pain and suffering from a rash he endured on October 2, 2003, which he maintains was caused by the painting of the ceiling in his cell at Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
At trial, defendant moved to dismiss the claim because it was received on May 12, 2004 by regular mail in the office of the Attorney General.
Claimant concedes that he used regular mail, but argues that he had no choice but to use regular mail because he was in the special housing unit at the time. There is no evidence that claimant was in the special housing unit or was otherwise prevented from serving the claim in accordance with the mandates of the Court of Claims Act.
The Court reserved decision on
defendant's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and permitted claimant to present his case. Notably, claimant failed to present any scientific or medical evidence sufficient to establish a causal link between claimant's rash and the ceiling paint. Additionally, Physician's Assistant Nelson Muthra testified that claimant was sent to a dermatologist for biopsies and was diagnosed with a chronic benign condition of unknown etiology and claimant was treated with topical steroids. Thus, claimant's contention that the ceiling paint caused his rash was unsubstantiated.
In any event, the provisions of Court of Claims Act § 10 and § 11 are to be strictly construed and failure to comply with the service provisions "is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim" (
Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-98).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss, upon which decision was reserved, is now GRANTED.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED DISMISSING CLAIM NO. 109347.

December 23, 2005
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims