New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

O'BRIEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-016-005, Claim No. 111150, Motion No. M-70801


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed as it was improperly served by regular mail.

Case Information

UID:
2006-016-005
Claimant(s):
SEAN O'BRIEN The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Claimant short name:
O'BRIEN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended to reflect that the sole proper defendant is the State of New York.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111150
Motion number(s):
M-70801
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Dell & Little, LLPBy: Joseph G. Dell, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
January 31, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant's motion to dismiss the claim of Sean O'Brien on the ground that it was improperly served by regular mail. In his claim, Mr. O'Brien alleges that he was injured in a June 30, 2005 automobile accident involving a State of New York vehicle. It is undisputed that O'Brien's claim was served by regular mail. Section 11.a of the Court of Claims Act provides that a claim must be served on the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail is not an authorized method of service and its use is insufficient to obtain jurisdiction. See, e.g., Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827, 669 NYS2d 759 (3d Dept 1998).

"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 sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[1] it is ordered that motion no. M-70801 be granted and claim no. 111150 be dismissed.



January 31, 2006
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The Court reviewed: defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B; claimant's affirmation in opposition with exhibits A and B; and defendant's reply affirmation.