1. Notice of motion and supporting affirmation of Assistant Attorney General
G. Ramsay dated December 18, 2006, with annexed Exhibits A-C.
Filed papers: Claim filed September 20, 2006; Answer filed October 19,
Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Michael Warren on the grounds that the
Court lacks jurisdiction because the claim does not comply with § 11 (b) of
the Court of Claims Act. Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires a claim to
“state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same,
and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total
sum claimed.” While absolute exactness is not required, there must be
substantial compliance with § 11 (b) to enable the State to promptly
investigate the claim and to ascertain its potential liability (see Lepkowski
v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 ; Heisler v State of New York,
78 AD2d 767 ).
According to the claim, it accrued on August 24, 2006 when an incident occurred
in the mess hall at Groveland Correctional Facility (Groveland) where Claimant
was incarcerated. Nothing in the claim, however, alleges any facts or
circumstances that occurred on August 24, 2006. Rather, Claimant alleges in his
claim that a civilian cook on August 8, 2006 used a racial epithet. This
allegation is followed by a few unintelligible sentences wherein it is generally
alleged that “inmate Warren approached me” and “inmate Warren
followed me ... .” It is impossible to tell if the Claimant is referring
to himself in the third person or if he is speaking of another inmate with the
same last name. These unintelligible sentences end with the notation
“(contd [sic]).” While two additional paragraphs are attached to the
claim as filed, nothing additional is attached to the claim as served. Where, as
here, jurisdiction is implicated, Defendant is not required to go beyond the
four corners of the claim to ascertain additional information which should have
been provided in the claim as served (see Davis v State of New York
Cl, November 19, 2004, Marin, J., Claim No. none, Motion No. M-69014, UID #
Nothing in the claim as served
gives the Defendant notice of the nature of the claim or of the items of damage
or injuries sustained. Simply stated, claim no. 112790 fails to comply with
§ 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act and must be dismissed. Because the
claim has been dismissed, the Court need not address the “Agreement for
Disclosure” which Claimant served on Defendant.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion no. M-72692 is granted and claim no.
112790 is dismissed.