New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

McCOACH v. NEW YORK CITY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, #2008-016-043, Claim No. 114794, Motion No. M-74926


Synopsis


Claim was dismissed for failure to serve the Office of the Attorney General.

Case Information

UID:
2008-016-043
Claimant(s):
CHRISTOPHER McCOACH
Claimant short name:
McCOACH
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
NEW YORK CITY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114794
Motion number(s):
M-74926
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Christopher McCoach, Pro SeNo Appearance
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 13, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Christopher McCoach, in which it is alleged that Mr. McCoach was overbilled for the Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 semesters at New York City College of Technology, a senior college of the City University of New York. The claim alleges an accrual date of December 3, 2007. The basis for defendant’s motion is that the claim, while served on the City University on February 8, 2008, has not been served on the Office of the Attorney General, which was raised in the fourth affirmative defense in the State’s answer. Section 11(a)(ii) of the Court of Claims Act provides that a claim against the City University of New York must be served both on that entity as well as on the Attorney General.

“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).

Claimant, who did not submit opposition papers on this motion, does not dispute that he failed to serve the Attorney General with claim no. 114794. In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions, IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-74926 be granted and claim no. 114794 be dismissed. As was discussed at a conference on May 15, 2008, claimant may choose to make a motion for permission to file a late claim pursuant to §10.6 of the Court of Claims Act.


August 13, 2008
New York, New York

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