New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MEEKIMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OSSINING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, INC., NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, #2008-010-006, Claim No. 114367, Motion No. M-74576


Synopsis


Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss is granted-lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case Information

UID:
2008-010-006
Claimant(s):
BARKIM MEEKIMS
Claimant short name:
MEEKIMS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OSSINING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, INC., NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114367
Motion number(s):
M-74576
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant’s attorney:
THE LAW FIRM OF JEFFREY LESSOFFBy: Jeffrey Lessoff, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New YorkBy: Wanda Perez-Maldonado, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 28, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Attorney’s Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits

Upon a thorough search of defendant’s records, the clerk in the Claims Bureau of the Office of the Attorney General, found no record of service of this claim upon the Attorney General (Defendant’s Ex. A, Affidavit of Attorney General’s Claims Bureau Clerk).

Court of Claims Act §11 mandates that any party seeking to commence an action against the State must file the claim with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy of the claim upon the Attorney General. The Court of Appeals has held that these statutory requirements must be strictly construed and that both filing and service must occur within the applicable limitations period as a pre-condition of a suit against the State (see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724).

Where claimant has failed to meet the statutory prerequisites, the claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 723; Rodriguez v State of New York, 307 AD2d 657). Accordingly, defendant’s unopposed[1] motion is GRANTED and the claim is dismissed.


May 28, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. TERRY JANE RUDERMAN
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. Claimant was granted an adjournment to submit opposition papers. However, claimant failed to properly serve and file such papers in accordance with the mandates of the Court of Claims Act. Accordingly, his papers, which were termed a cross-motion, were not considered by the Court. Notably, this Decision and Order does not preclude claimant from bringing a late claim application upon proper papers served and filed in accordance with the Court of Claims Act and the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims.