New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BONNETTE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-016-047, Claim No. 110742, Motion No. M-70090


Claim was dismissed as notice of intention was served on 91st day after accrual.

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:
Val Bonnette, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 29, 2005
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The State has moved to dismiss the claim of Val Bonnette on the ground that his notice of intention was untimely served for the purposes of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). In his claim, Mr. Bonnette alleges that because of defendant's negligence, he was injured on April 8, 2004, when he had a "head-to-head collision" with another inmate in the gym at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility. He also complains of the medical care he received that day following the incident. Section 10.3 of the Act provides that a claim such as this must be filed within 90 days of accrual, in this case, within 90 days of April 8, 2004, i.e., by July 7, 2004. Such section provides that in the alternative, a notice of intention may be served within such 90 days, and then a claim filed and served within two years of accrual.

Defendant submits a copy of claimant's notice of intention, with a date stamp indicating that it was served on July 8, 2004, 91 days after accrual. Other than to say there remains a question as to when the claim was received, claimant does not substantively dispute the July 8th receipt date, e.g., by submitting a copy of his certified mail return receipt.

"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 which a notice of intention served on the 91st day was found untimely for jurisdictional purposes, and Reinmuth v State of New York, 65 AD2d 648, 409 NYS2d 455 (3d Dept 1978), in which the claim was found untimely where it was served 92 days after accrual.

In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Bonnette's claim by virtue of his failure to timely serve his notice of intention. For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-70090 be granted and claim no. 110742 be dismissed.

June 29, 2005
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits 1 through 3; and claimant's "Affidavit in Answer to Defendant's Motion" with exhibits 1 through 3.