New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

REED v. OSSINING COURT, OSSINING POLICE, #2008-030-563, Claim No. 114422, Motion No. M-75317


Synopsis


Claim dismissed. Order to Show Cause issued by the court resolved. Claim does not name the State of New York or a State agency or appropriate public authority as defendant, and not served on Attorney General in any event. Court does not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction.

Case Information

UID:
2008-030-563
Claimant(s):
WINSTON J. REED
Claimant short name:
REED
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
OSSINING COURT, OSSINING POLICE
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114422
Motion number(s):
M-75317
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
WINSTON REED, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
October 7, 2008
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The following papers were read and considered on the disposition of the Court’s Order to Show


Cause marked returnable October 1, 2008:

  1. Order to Show Cause dated July 31, 2008
  1. Envelope with markings indicated “Return to Sender; Unable to Forward” posted August 14, 2008
  1. Filed Papers: Claim
After carefully reviewing the papers issued and the applicable law the Order to Show Cause is resolved as follows:

The Court finds that there was an attempt to serve claimant at his last known address at Westchester County Jail, but service was not accomplished because claimant was released and no forwarding address was provided. Significantly, it does not appear that the claimant provided the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims with any change in address as required, [see 22 NYCRR §206.6(f)][1] indeed there has been no communication from claimant regarding this claim since October 29, 2007 when the claim was filed.

The claimant does not name the State of New York or a State agency or appropriate public authority as a party defendant in the case caption, suggesting that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. See generally Court of Claims Act § 9.

Additionally, Court of Claims Act §11(a) provides that “ . . . a copy [of the claim] shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general . . .” within the time prescribed in Court of Claims Act §10; and service is complete when it is received in the Attorney General’s Office. Court of Claims Act §11(a)(i). The original affidavit of service filed with the claim does not indicate that the defendant was ever served with a copy of the claim. No answer to the claim was filed in the office of the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims further suggesting that the claim was never served as required, and thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on this ground as well.

Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the claimant has failed to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act §§10 and 11 and, has additionally brought a claim over which the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, accordingly, Claim Number 114422 is hereby dismissed in its entirety.

October 7, 2008
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. “Changes in the post office address or telephone number of any attorney or pro se claimant shall be communicated in writing to the clerk within ten days thereof.”