New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SANTIAGO v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, # 2010-010-054, Claim No. 117726, Motion No. M-78824

Synopsis

Defendant's motion to dismiss granted. Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served upon defendant by regular mail only and not certified mail, return receipt requested

Case information

UID: 2010-010-054
Claimant(s): TOMAS SANTIAGO
Claimant short name: SANTIAGO
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 117726
Motion number(s): M-78824
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Terry Jane Ruderman
Claimant's attorney: TOMAS SANTIAGO
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: November 17, 2010
City: White Plains
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on defendant's motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits........................1

Claimant's Response and Exhibits.............................................................................2

Supplemental Affirmation and Exhibits....................................................................3

Defendant moves to dismiss Claim No. 117726 for failure to properly commence an action in accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act.

At a Preliminary Conference held on September 27, 2010, claimant produced two documents in response to defendant's motion to dismiss. The documents are: 1) a New York State Department of Correctional Services Disbursement or Refund Request Form dated August 18, 2009 in the amount of 44 cents and 2) a Great Meadow Correctional Facility Inmate Statement for the time period of August 1, 2009 through August 31, 2009 (Defendant's Ex. E).

The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act 10 and 11 are jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance as a precondition of suit against the State (see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724). A failure to comply with any of the service provisions is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 ["(t)he failure to satisfy any of the (statutory) conditions is a jurisdictional defect"]; Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-98).

Here, the papers submitted failed to establish that claimant properly served defendant, with either a Notice of Intention to File a Claim or a claim, by certified mail, return receipt requested as required by Court of Claims Act 11(a). Rather, it appears that claimant served only a Notice of Intention to File a Claim upon defendant and did so by regular mail and not in accordance with the mandates of the Court of Claims Act (Defendant's Exs. E, F).

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED (CPLR 3211[a][2][8]).

November 17, 2010

White Plains, New York

Terry Jane Ruderman

Judge of the Court of Claims