New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
RICHBURG v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-016-044, Claim No. 111716, Motion No. M-78253

Synopsis

Claim was dismissed for lack of service.

Case information

UID: 2010-016-044
Claimant(s): THORNWELL RICHBURG
Claimant short name: RICHBURG
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 111716
Motion number(s): M-78253
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Thornwell Richburg, Pro Se
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Carol A. Cocchiola, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: June 30, 2010
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim of Thornwell Richburg on the ground that the claim has never been served on the Office of the Attorney General. In his claim, Mr. Richburg alleges that on October 20, 2003, while he was incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, he was injured when he came into contact with newly installed heating steam pipes. Claimant does not oppose defendant's motion.

Defendant submits the affidavit of a senior clerk in the Albany Office of the Attorney General, who states that she made a thorough search of the records of the Claims Bureau of such office, and that there is no record that the claim was ever served on the Attorney General.

Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act") provides that a claim such as this must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on the Office of the Attorney General within 90 days of accrual unless a notice of intention is served within such time frame, after which the claim must then be served and filed within two years.

"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 (2d Dept 1984), lv denied 64 NY2d 607 (1985) (citations omitted). See also Mallory v State of New York, 196 AD2d 925 (3d Dept 1993).

Claimant, who submits no opposition papers, does not dispute that he failed to serve his claim on the Office of the Attorney General in compliance with 10 of the Act. Accordingly, this Court thus lacks jurisdiction over Richburg's claim. Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78253 be granted and that claim no. 111716 be dismissed.

June 30, 2010

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 exhibit 1 with sub-exhibit A.