New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MONTERO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-036-543, Claim No. 107982, Motion No. M-71777


Synopsis


The claim was served by certified mail without a return receipt being requested, not by a method authorized by Court of Claims Act § 11(a), and claimant failed to exhaust his “personal property claims administrative remedy” as required by Court of Claims Act § 10(9). Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Case Information

UID:
2006-036-543
Claimant(s):
CELSO MONTERO
Claimant short name:
MONTERO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
107982
Motion number(s):
M-71777
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
MELVIN L SCHWEITZER
Claimant’s attorney:
CELSO MONTERO, pro se(no appearance)
Defendant’s attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERALBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 21, 2006
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


This is defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim – in which claimant seeks damages for the alleged loss of his personal property at Southport Correctional Facility – for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant alleges that the claim was served by certified mail without a return receipt being requested, not by a method authorized by Court of Claims Act § 11(a), and that claimant failed to exhaust his “personal property claims administrative remedy” as required by Court of Claims Act § 10(9). Claimant did not respond to the motion and review of defendant’s submission (a notice of motion, affirmation and exhibits) reveals it is correct on both counts (see Govan v State of New York, 301AD2d 757 [3d Dept 2003]; Pratt v State of New York, Ct Cl, Hard, J., Claim No. 107420, UID No. 2003-032-057 [June 20, 2003]). The jurisdictional infirmities arising from the improper service and claimant’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedy were both set forth in defendant’s answer. The court is thus without jurisdiction over the claim

Accordingly, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.


July 21, 2006
New York, New York

HON. MELVIN L SCHWEITZER
Judge of the Court of Claims