New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

PENDER v. STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., #2008-016-055, Claim No. 114525, Motion Nos. M-74624, M-74742, CM-74943


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-016-055
Claimant(s):
JUVONDI R. PENDER
Claimant short name:
PENDER
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114525
Motion number(s):
M-74624, M-74742
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-74943
Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Juvondi R. Pender, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Gwendolyn Hatcher, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 2, 2008
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, Juvondi R. Pender apparently alleges non-compliance with certain FOIL requests and document demands he made following an incident in which he was injured while working at the Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities Services Office. It is unclear what relief claimant Mr. Pender seeks in motion no. M-74624; in motion no. M-74742, he seeks an adjournment of such motion.[1] In cross-motion no. CM-74943, defendant moves to dismiss. Claimant does not dispute defendant’s assertion that he served his claim on the State of New York by United States Postal Service Priority Mail. See ¶5 of the April 30, 2008 affirmation of Gwendolyn Hatcher and exhibit A thereto.

Subdivision a of §11 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”) requires a claim to be served on the Office of the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Service by Priority Mail is not a method authorized by the Act, and its use results in a lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Larrea v State of New York, Ct Cl May 5, 2006 (unreported, claim no. 105634, motion no. M-71497, UID #2006-037-009[2], Moriarty, J.). In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim of Juvondi R. Pender, and defendant’s remaining arguments need not be reached.

With respect to claimant’s request for oral argument, in view of the foregoing, I find that such is not necessary. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[3], IT IS ORDERED that motion nos. M-74624 and M-74742 be denied as moot, that cross-motion no. CM-74943 be granted, and that claim no. 114525 be dismissed.


October 2, 2008
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Claimant’s request for an adjournment was granted in an April 4, 2008 letter from the court.
  2. [2]This and other decisions of the Court of Claims may be found on the Court’s website: www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.
  3. [3]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion no. M-74624; claimant’s notice of motion no. M-74742 with “Averment Affirmation Affidavit Verified in Support of the Claimant”; defendant’s notice of cross-motion no. CM-74943 with affirmation in support and exhibits A through D; and claimant’s submission filed on August 18, 2008.