New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

FIGUEROA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-023, Claim No. 114321, Motion No. M-74452


Synopsis


Claim served by regular mail was dismissed.

Case Information

UID:
2008-016-023
Claimant(s):
WILLIAM FIGUEROA
Claimant short name:
FIGUEROA
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114321
Motion number(s):
M-74452
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
William Figueroa, Pro SeNo Appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Roberto Barbosa, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 12, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In this claim, William Figueroa alleges that the Special Housing Unit at Sullivan Correctional Facility does not have visual fire alarms with strobe lights. He also alleges that Sullivan does not have staff proficient in sign language. The State of New York moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim. Defendant maintains that Mr. Figueroa’s claim was served by regular mail on October 5, 2007, a defense timely raised in the State’s answer as required by subdivision c of §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”). See ¶¶7 and 8 of the January 18, 2008 affirmation of Roberto Barbosa and exhibits A and B thereto. Claimant, who did not oppose defendant’s motion, does not dispute that he served the claim by regular mail.

Section 11.a of the Act provides that a claim must be served on the State via the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail is not an authorized method of service and its use is insufficient to obtain jurisdiction. See e.g. Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827, 669 NYS2d 759 (3d Dept 1998). The Court thus lacks jurisdiction over the claim and defendant’s remaining arguments need not be reached.

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions,[1] it is ordered that motion no. M-74452 be granted and claim no. 114321 be dismissed.


May 12, 2008
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]The Court reviewed defendant’s notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A and B. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.