New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ORAMA v. KAMI CARIOM, Correctional Officer, et al., #2007-038-531, Claim No. 113106, Motion No. M-72840


Synopsis


Bailment claim dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; claim filed and served more than 120 days after claimant received notice that his administrative appeal was denied (Court of Claims Act §10[9]).

Case Information

UID:
2007-038-531
Claimant(s):
GILBERT A. ORAMA
Claimant short name:
ORAMA
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
KAMI CARIOM, Correctional Officer, et al.
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113106
Motion number(s):
M-72840
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
W. BROOKS DEBOW
Claimant’s attorney:
Gilbert A. Orama, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 7, 2007
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), seeks monetary damages for the alleged destruction of his typewriter. In lieu of answering the claim, defendant moves to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction due to claimant’s failure to timely file and serve the claim. Claimant has not submitted opposition to the motion.

The claim alleges that claimant’s typewriter was damaged or destroyed on May 18, 2005. Claimant’s administrative remedies were exhausted on May 8, 2006, when he received notification that his claim had been disapproved after administrative appellate review. The claim was served on the Office of the Attorney General on December 14, 2006 and filed in the Court of Claims on December 15, 2006.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(9), a claim by an inmate for loss or damage to property must be filed and served within one hundred twenty (120) days after the available administrative remedies have been exhausted. Here, the 120-day period began to run on May 8, 2006, the date that claimant received notice that his administrative claim had been disapproved following administrative appellate review (see Blanche v State of New York, 17 AD3d 1069, 1071 [4th Dept 2005]; Gloster v State of New York, 6 Misc 3d 1001(A) [Ct Cl 2002]; see also Cagino Affirmation, Exhibit C). Accordingly, the time within which to file and serve the claim expired on September 5, 2006. Because the claim was not served or filed until more than three months after that date, it must be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the untimely claim (see Pristell v State of New York, ___ AD3d ___, ___ NYS2d ___, 2007 WL 1284937 [3d Dept, May 3, 2007]).

In light of the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, defendant’s remaining arguments in support of dismissal need not be addressed.

Accordingly, Motion No. M-72840 is GRANTED, and Claim No. 113106 is DISMISSED.



May 7, 2007
Albany, New York

HON. W. BROOKS DEBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers considered
:


(1) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated January 16, 2007;

(2) Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, dated January 16, 2007, with exhibits A-C;

(3) Affidavit of Service of Judith A. Crawford, sworn to January 16, 2007.