New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ADAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2009-016-003, Claim No. 115708, Motion Nos. M-75576, M-75800


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
M-75576, M-75800
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Jerry Adams, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Roberto Barbosa, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 16, 2009
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


In motion no. M-75576, defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Jerry Adams on the grounds that: (1) it was untimely served; (2) it was served by regular mail; and (3) it seeks a remedy beyond the jurisdiction of the court. In motion no. M-75800, claimant seeks to have counsel assigned. In his claim, Mr. Adams alleges that he was wrongly denied parole status on June 10, 2008. Under any possible theory of recovery, §10 of the Court of Claims Act would require a claim such as this to be served within 90 days of accrual, i.e., by September 8, 2008. Adams did not serve his claim on the Office of the Attorney General until September 12, 2008. See ¶5 of the September 23, 2008 affirmation of Roberto Barbosa and exhibit A thereto. “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).

Nor does claimant dispute that he served his claim by regular mail. Section 11a.(i) of the Act requires either personal service or service by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail is not an authorized method of service and its use is insufficient to obtain jurisdiction. See e.g. Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827, 669 NYS2d 759 (3d Dept 1998).

In view of the foregoing, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim of Jerry Adams and defendant’s remaining argument need not be reached. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-75576 be granted and that claim no. 115708 be dismissed and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion no. M-75800 be denied as moot.

January 16, 2009
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The following were reviewed: defendant’s notice of motion no. M-75576 with attached affirmation and exhibits A and B; claimant’s notice of motion no. M-75800 which is also an “Opposition to [Defendant’s] Motion to Dismiss”; and defendant’s “Affirmation in Opposition to Claimant’s Motion for Assignment of Counsel.” I find that oral argument on these motions is not necessary.