New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RONDON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-032-019, Claim No. 106709, Motion No. M-71037


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2006-032-019
Claimant(s):
ISIDRO RONDON
Claimant short name:
RONDON
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106709
Motion number(s):
M-71037
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant's attorney:
Isidro Rondon, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Kathleen M. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
March 20, 2006
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves this Court pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the claim for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) and § 11. Claimant fails to submit opposition to this relief.


On September 27, 2002, claimant, an inmate, filed an action alleging that on October 23, 2000, he was injured while operating a floor buffing machine when a steel door opened unexpectedly and struck him in the shoulder. The claim further alleges that he served defendant with a notice of intention on January 25, 2001.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) provides that negligence claims against the State must be "filed and served upon the [A]ttorney [G]eneral within [90] days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the [A]ttorney [G]eneral a written notice of intention to file a claim" (id). Failure to comply with this jurisdictional requirement is fatal to the claim (see Conner v State of New York, 268 AD2d 706, 707 [3d Dept 2000]). It is well settled that a claim accrues for purposes of the Court of Claims Act when the injury is suffered (see Konigsberg v State of New York, 256 AD2d 982, 982-983 [3d Dept 1998].

Claimant's injury occurred on October 23, 2000. Thus, claimant was required to serve and file his claim raising these allegations by January 22, 2001.[1] Given that claimant did not serve defendant with a notice of intention until three days later, on January 25, 2001, claimant did not timely serve either a claim or a notice of intention within 90 days of the accrual of his action.

Accordingly, defendant's motion M-71037 is granted and the claim is dismissed.



March 20, 2006
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Notice of Motion filed December 1, 2005;

2. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Arnold dated December 1, 2005; Exhibits A-B annexed.




[1]The 90-day period actually expired on Sunday, January 21, 2001. As such, the deadline is automatically extended to the next business day (Gen. Constr. Law § 25-a).