New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

MURPHY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-045-004, Claim No. 114295, Motion Nos. M-74251, M-74252


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2008-045-004
Claimant(s):
PAT MURPHY
1 1.The caption has been amended, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Claimant short name:
MURPHY
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The caption has been amended, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
114295
Motion number(s):
M-74251, M-74252
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Claimant’s attorney:
Pat Murphy, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: No appearance
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 17, 2008
City:
Hauppauge
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on these motions: Claimant’s Notice of Motion with annexed documents and the filed Claim.

By an Order to Show Cause dated November 21, 2007, this Court directed claimant to submit proof that the claim in this matter had been served on defendant, the State of New York, in compliance with Court of Claims Act § 11.

The underlying claim in this case apparently primarily involves a medicaid dispute regarding transportation costs.

CCA § 11(a)(i) states that:

“[t]he claim shall be filed with the clerk of the court; and, except in the case of a claim for the appropriation by the state of lands, a copy shall be served upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for filing with the clerk of the court either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, or, where authorized by rule of the chief administrator of the courts and upon consent of the attorney general, by facsimile transmission or electronic means, as defined in subdivision (f) of rule twenty-one hundred three of the civil practice law and rules, in such manner as may be provided by rule of court. Any notice of intention shall be similarly served upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for service upon the attorney general. Service by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general shall not be complete until the claim or notice of intention is received in the office of the attorney general. Personal service upon the attorney general shall be made in the same manner as described in section three hundred seven of the civil practice law and rules.”


The Court of Appeals has long held that “[b]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”(Dreger v New York State Thruway Authority, 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). “[A]ccordingly, claimants who had not met the literal requirements of Court of Claims Act §11 had not properly commenced their actions” (Lichtenstein v State of New York, 93 NY2d 911, 913 [1999]). Claimant has failed to put forth evidence showing that she served her claim upon the Attorney General’s Office in accordance with the requirements of CCA § 11(a)(i). Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction over the action and must dismiss the claim.


Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the claim is dismissed. Accordingly, claimant’s motion to change venue is denied as moot.

January 17, 2008
Hauppauge, New York

HON. GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims