New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

VENTURA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-031, Claim No. 113571, Motion No. M-73876


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed as untimely.

Case Information

UID:
2008-016-031
Claimant(s):
JOANNE VENTURA
Claimant short name:
VENTURA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
113571
Motion number(s):
M-73876
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Law Offices of Joel L. Getreu, P.C.No Appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
July 1, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Joanne Ventura, in which it is alleged that Ms. Ventura was injured in an April 14, 2005 motor vehicle accident involving an automobile owned by the State of New York and driven by a State employee. Section 10.3 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”) provides that a claim such as this one must be served and filed within 90 days of accrual. Claimant, who filed no opposition papers on this motion, does not dispute that she served and filed her claim on April 12, 2007, almost two years after her accident. Nor does she dispute that prior to that time, she did not serve the State with a notice of intention.

“It is well established that compliance with sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act pertaining to the timeliness of filing and service requirements respecting claims and notices of intention to file claims constitutes a jurisdictional prerequisite to the institution and maintenance of a claim against the State, and accordingly, must be strictly construed . . .” Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782, 783, 480 NYS2d 225, 227 (2d Dept 1984), lv denied, 64 NY2d 607, 488 NYS2d 1023 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925, 601 NYS2d 972 (3d Dept 1993). In sum, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this claim. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that claim no. 113571 be dismissed.


July 1, 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.