New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BRADBERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-015-200, Claim No. 110514, Motion No. M–73069


Defendant's motion to dismiss claim for failure to serve it upon the attorney general as required by Court of Claims Act § 11(a) was granted.

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:
Ramone Bradberry, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Saul Aronson, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 14, 2007
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves for dismissal of the instant claim on the ground that the claimant failed to serve the claim upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § § 10 (3) and 11 (a). Claimant opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment[1]. Claimant seeks damages for injuries allegedly sustained in an inmate-on-inmate assault on April 25, 2004. The claim was filed on February 17, 2005 and alleges that a notice of intention to file a claim was served on July 15, 2004, within 90 days of accrual. Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is supported by an affidavit from Janet A. Barringer, Senior Clerk in the Albany Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Barringer avers that she searched the electronic and paper files maintained by the Attorney General's office and can find no record that this claim was ever served upon the Attorney General.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) requires that a claim to recover damages for negligent injury to person or property be served upon the Attorney general. Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) provides, in relevant, that a copy of the claim "shall be served upon the attorney general...either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested...". The requirement that a claim be served upon the Attorney General is jurisdictional in nature and, as such, must be strictly construed (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722 [1989]; Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats v State of New York, 270 AD2d 687 [2000]).

Defendant has established that no claim was served upon the Attorney General as required and a review of the claim reveals no affidavit of service.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed and the claimant's cross-motion is denied as moot.

June 14, 2007
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated March 16, 2007;
  2. Affirmation of Saul Aronson dated March 16, 2007 with exhibit;
  3. Affidavit of Janet A. Barringer sworn to March 12, 2007 with exhibits;
  4. Letter from Ramone Bradberry in support of summary judgment dated April 3, 2007;
  5. Document entitled affidavit of service of summary judgment order;
  6. Affirmation in opposition of Saul Aronson dated June 4, 2007.

[1]. The basis for the claimant's opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss is not discernable from the papers he submitted nor is the purported ground for summary judgment on his behalf.