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
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
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