New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MOORE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-015-214, Claim No. 112159, Motion No. M-73224


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2007-015-214
Claimant(s):
KEVIN MOORE
1 1.The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Claimant short name:
MOORE
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
112159
Motion number(s):
M-73224
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
Kevin Moore, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Paul F. Cagino, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 16, 2007
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (2) and (8) for failure to serve the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 11(a) (i) is granted. In a claim filed on March 31, 2006 the claimant alleges that a cause of action accrued on March 7, 2006[2].

In support of its dismissal motion the defendant submitted 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 found no record that this claim was ever served upon the Attorney General[3]. No opposition to the instant motion was submitted and no affidavit of service of the claim upon the Attorney General was filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims.

Court of Claims Act § 11(a) (i) provides, in relevant part, that a copy of the claim "shall be served upon the attorney general...either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested...". This requirement 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 established that no claim was served upon the Attorney General as required and the claimant has not opposed the instant motion.

Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.


July 16, 2007
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated April 13, 2007;
  2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated April 13, 2007;
  3. Affidavit of Janet A. Barringer sworn to March 5, 2007 with exhibits.

[2].The Court is unable to discern the specific nature of the cause of action asserted in the claim.
[3]. Ms. Barringer states that a notice of intention was served, however, the nature of the claim is not clear and the Court is unable to determine therefor whether or not time remains for service of a claim.