New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HOLLOWAY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-016-066, Claim No. 112267, Motion No. M-71994


Synopsis


Claim served by Express Mail and fax was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2006-016-066
Claimant(s):
CURTIS HOLLOWAY
Claimant short name:
HOLLOWAY
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112267
Motion number(s):
M-71994
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Curtis Holloway, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Ellen Matowik Russell, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 23, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

This is defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim of Curtis Holloway on the grounds that it was improperly served and fails to state a cause of action against the State. In his claim, Mr. Holloway alleges that he was treated disrespectfully by staff members at South Beach Psychiatric Center. 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, or, where authorized by rule of the chief administrator of the courts and upon consent of the attorney general, by facsimile transmission or electronic means . . .


Holloway served his claim by express mail and also by fax. Express mail is not an authorized method of service and its use is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Castillo v The Visiting Nurse Service of New York, The Board for Higher Learning, Ct Cl, February 28, 2005 (unreported, claim no. 109724, motion nos. M-69240, M-69435 and M-69491, Sise, J., UID #2005-028-518[1]). As to facsimile, the Attorney General has not consented to such method of service as would be required by §11.a. See, e.g., Van Allen v State of New York, Ct Cl, February 23, 2005 (unreported, claim no. 106847, motion no. M-69159, Hard, J., UID #2005-032-015).

In sum, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[2] it is ordered that motion no. M-71994 be granted and claim no. 112267 be dismissed.



October 23, 2006
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the court’s website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B; and claimant’s response received on September 14, 2006.