New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MULAZIM v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-039-059, Claim No. 109318, Motion No. M-73311


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim for damages to personal property is granted. Defendant offered sufficient proof to establish that the claim was not served upon the Attorney General as is required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (I).

Case Information

UID:
2007-039-059
Claimant(s):
SHADEED MULAZIM
Claimant short name:
MULAZIM
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK1 1.The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper Defendant.
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109318
Motion number(s):
M-73311
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
James H. Ferreira
Claimant’s attorney:
Shadeed Mulazim, pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Eileen E. BryantAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 25, 2008
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant Shadeed Mulazim, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility at the time of the circumstances alleged herein, filed a claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims on May 6, 2004. Claimant alleges, among other things, that during December 2002 his radio was damaged following a “dorm frisk” by prison officials. Defendant now moves the Court for an order dismissing the claim on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3) and 11 (a) and CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (8) because claimant failed to serve the Attorney General with a copy of the claim.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he claim shall be filed with the clerk of the court . . . and . . . a copy shall be served upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for filing with the clerk of the court either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested.” “The Court of Appeals has noted in interpreting the above provision that ‘statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed’ ” (Rodriguez v State of New York, 307 AD2d 657 [2003], quoting Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]).

In support of its motion, defendant offers the affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Eileen E. Bryant. Bryant states that she discovered the above claim had been filed with the Court of Claims when her office received a letter from the Court dated May 20, 2004 acknowledging its receipt of the claim. In further support of its motion, defendant offers the affidavit of Janet A. Barringer, Senior Clerk with the Attorney General’s Office of the State of New York. Barringer attests that she is familiar with the record keeping system of the Claims Practice Group of the Attorney General’s Office regarding the filing and service of claims. She further attests that, following a thorough search of the records of the Attorney General’s Office, she determined that a copy of the claim was not served on the Attorney General. Additionally, on May 2, 2007 defendant served copies of its motion papers on claimant, as evidenced by the affidavit of service which is annexed to the motion papers.
The Court finds that defendant has offered sufficient proof in support of its motion to establish that the claim was not served upon the Attorney General. Claimant has not offered any proof in opposition to the motion and, accordingly, the Court is compelled to find that it lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i).

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that M-73311 is granted and the claim is dismissed.


January 25, 2008
Albany, New York

HON. JAMES H. FERREIRA
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered
:
  1. Notice of Motion to Dismiss dated May 2, 2007; and
  2. Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss dated May 2, 2007 with exhibits.