New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HARGROVE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-015-224, Claim No. 112609, Motion No. M-73353


Claim dismissed for failure to serve the Attorney General.

Case Information

1 1.The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

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):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant’s attorney:
Rosalene Marie Hargrove, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Eileen E. Bryant, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 9, 2007
Saratoga Springs

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Defendant moves for dismissal of this claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (8) on the ground that the Attorney General was not served with the claim. Claimant, proceeding pro se, filed a claim on August 7, 2006. The claim seeks no monetary damages and is difficult to decipher. It states in relevant part the following:
The defendant which is the New York State Tax Office didn't confirm the direction or refund of my New York State Income Tax for the year 2005 file (sic) in the year of 2006. My claim appears to be meritorious also prejudice to the State. The Social Security Office states I'm not 62 years old: age decrimination [sic]. . . The Social Security Administration will accept.

If my New York State Income Tax has been waived as withheld I have been deny (sic) of my rights.

I am a former Member of the Presidential Task Force: A recognized Commissioner of Achievement of the Senates during the years of 2004 - 2005.

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 found no record that this claim was served upon the Attorney General. Ms. Barringer also states based upon her review of the records maintained by the Office of the Attorney General that although a notice of intention to file a claim was received on July 31, 2006, it was sent by regular mail service.

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 . . . Any notice of intention shall be similarly served . . .". These requirements are 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, 687 [2000]).

Defendant has established that no claim was served upon the Attorney General and the notice of intention was improperly served by regular mail.

There being no opposition to the defendant's motion, the claim is dismissed.

August 9, 2007
Saratoga Springs, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion to dismiss dated May 2, 2007;
  2. Affirmation of Eileen E. Bryant dated May 2, 2007 with exhibit;
  3. Affidavit of Janet A. Barringer sworn to May 1, 2007 with exhibits.