New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DeJESUS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-015-119, Claim No. NONE, Motion No. M-71750


Claimant's motion to treat the notice of intention as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims act § 10 (8) was denied as the time within which to file and serve a claim had not yet expired.

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):

Claimant’s attorney:
William DeJesus, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Michael W. Friedman, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 1, 2006
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant's motion for an order granting leave to re-serve his claim or, in the alternative, for permission to treat a notice of intention previously served upon the Attorney General as a claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (8) is denied as unnecessary. On March 16, 2006 claimant served a claim upon the Attorney General alleging, inter alia, the failure to provide appropriate medical care[1]. Claimant acknowledges that the claim was not served in a manner consistent with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a). Furthermore, a review of court records indicate that the case file for the claim (Claim No. 112091) was closed by the Chief Clerk of the Court on August 8, 2006 due to claimant's failure to pay the $50.00 filing fee within 120 days as provided in an order of Presiding Judge Richard E. Sise dated April 4, 2006. To the extent that it is necessary to address the defendant's argument regarding claimant's failure to properly serve the claim, since the file containing the claim has already been closed (see attached documents), claimant's admission that the claim was not served in the manner required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) clearly establishes that the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Here, however, claimant served a verified notice of intention to file a claim (see claimant's Exhibit A) upon the Attorney General's Office by certified mail, return receipt requested on February 22, 2006 (see claimant's Exhibit B). The notice of intention provided notice to the State of various alleged acts of medical negligence beginning on December 26, 2005 and extending through February 2006. The notice of intention included numerous causes of action and requested damages in the amount of $1,000,000.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) states:
3. A claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim.

Service of the notice of intention occurred within 90 days of the earliest date of the claim's alleged accrual and was therefore timely. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) claimant has two years from the earliest date of accrual (i.e., December 26, 2005) to serve and file a claim in accordance with Court of Claims Act § 11. Claimant's motion for permission to re-serve the claim or to treat the notice of intention as a claim is therefore denied as unnecessary.

September 1, 2006
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated May 15, 2006;
  2. Affidavit of William DeJesus sworn to May 16, 2006 with exhibits;
  3. Affirmation of Michael W. Friedman dated June 7, 2006 with exhibits.

[1].The claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court the same day.