New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HILL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ALTONA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CAMP GABRIEL, ADIRONDACK MEDICAL FACILITY, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND “JOHN DOE” (a fictitious name to be used until actual name is known), #2009-032-126, Claim No. 110314, Motion No. M-76107


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2009-032-126
Claimant(s):
MAURICE HILL
Claimant short name:
HILL
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ALTONA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CAMP GABRIEL, ADIRONDACK MEDICAL FACILITY, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND “JOHN DOE” (a fictitious name to be used until actual name is known)
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110314
Motion number(s):
M-76107
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
JUDITH A. HARD
Claimant’s attorney:
Law Offices of Laura M. Miranda, PLLCBy: Laura M. Miranda, Esq.
Defendant’s attorney:
Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo, NYS Attorney GeneralBy: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 12, 2009
City:
Albany
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant brings a motion to dismiss Claim No. 110314 on the ground that claimant has failed to timely serve his claim in accordance with sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants defendant’s motion and dismisses Claim No. 110314.


The underlying claim, which is for negligence and medical malpractice, arises out of an incident that occurred on January 5, 2002. Claimant alleges that on said date, he fell and sustained injuries as a result of defendant’s failure to repair a dangerous condition. He further alleges that the medical personnel at the prison in which he was incarcerated failed to provide proper and competent medical treatment to him.

Claimant alleges, in his pleadings, that he improperly served a notice of intention to file a claim on April 5, 2002. Defendant, who raised the defense of timeliness with particularity in its answer, argues that even if claimant properly served said notice of intention, claimant was required to serve his claim within two years of the accrual of the cause of action and failed to do so.

Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) states, in pertinent part, that a claim to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years after the accrual of such claim.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a)(i) provides that the claim shall be filed with the clerk of the court, and a copy shall be served upon the attorney general within the times provided for filing with the clerk of the court.

Court of Claims Act § 11 (c) states that any objection or defense based upon the failure to comply with (i) the time limitations contained in section ten of the Court of Claims Act, (ii) the manner of service requirements, or (iii) the verification requirements is waived unless raised, with particularity, either by a motion to dismiss made before service of the responsive pleading is required or in the responsive pleading.

Compliance with the filing and service requirements contained in sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing and maintaining an action in the Court of Claims, and failure to comply constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal (see Buckles v State of New York, 221 NY 418 [1917]; Thomas v State of New York, 144 AD2d 882 [3d Dept 1988]; Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 [1989]; Matter of Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 177 AD2d 762 [3d Dept 1991], affd 81 NY2d 721 [1992]).

In the present case, the claim accrued on January 5, 2002. Accordingly, even if the notice of intention to file a claim was properly served upon defendant on April 5, 2002, the claim was required to be filed and served on or before January 5, 2004. The claim was filed on January 6, 2005, and served on January 11, 2005, more than one year after the requisite time period expired. Claimant’s failure to comply with sections 10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect and warrants dismissal of the claim (see Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037 [3d Dept 1993]).

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss (M-76107) is granted and Claim No. 110314 is dismissed.



June 12, 2009
Albany, New York

HON. JUDITH A. HARD
Judge of the Court of Claims


Papers Considered:


1. Amended Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Affirmation in Support of Glenn C. King, AAG, dated February 6, 2009, with Exhibits A - B;

2. No opposition papers.