New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
FIGUEROA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2009-016-048, Claim No. 116965, Motion No. M-76883

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2009-016-048
Claimant(s): WILLIAM FIGUEROA
Claimant short name: FIGUEROA
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 116965
Motion number(s): M-76883
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: William Figueroa, Pro Se
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 10, 2009
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of William Figueroa on the ground that his notice of intention and claim were improperly served by regular mail. In his claim, Mr. Figueroa alleges that on February 2, 2009, he was assaulted by staff members at Sullivan Correctional Facility, and was thereafter denied appropriate medical treatment in an effort to "cover up" the assault.

Claimant, who failed to oppose this motion, does not dispute that he served his notice of intention on defendant by regular mail on May 11, 2009, and that he thereafter served his claim on defendant by regular mail on June 5, 2009. See 5 and 6 of the June 29, 2009 affirmation of Roberto Barbosa and exhibits A and B thereto. Defendant raised the issue of service by regular mail in the first and second affirmative defenses of its answer.

Section 11.a.(i) of the Act requires that both notices of intention and claims be served by 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). Accordingly, the court lacks jurisdiction over claim no. 116965.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-76883 be granted and that claim no. 116965 be dismissed.

September 10, 2009

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims


1. The Court reviewed defendant's notice of motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through C. Claimant submitted no opposition papers.