New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
IGWE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-033-391, Claim No. None, Motion No. M-77781

Synopsis

Case information

UID: 2010-033-391
Claimant(s): KALU IGWE
Claimant short name: IGWE
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): None
Motion number(s): M-77781
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: James J. Lack
Claimant's attorney: Kalu Igwe, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General
By: Todd A. Schall, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: June 21, 2010
City: Hauppauge
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

This is a motion by Kalu Igwe (hereinafter "movant") for permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10(6)(1) , relating to a claim against the State of New York.(2) Movant alleges he bought a lottery ticket for a drawing on April 26, 2003, in Inwood, New York. According to the movant, the ticket won the jackpot for the drawing, approximately $3,000,000.00. Movant alleges he inadvertently threw the winning ticket away. Since 2003, movant has been attempting to have someone investigate his claim. According to movant's investigation, an internet subscriber won the lottery on the date movant claims he won.

The requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (Lurie v State of New York, 73 AD2d 1006, aff'd 52 NY2d 849). The purpose of these requirements is to give the State prompt notice of an occurrence and an opportunity to investigate the facts and prepare a defense. It is well settled that if the filing is not timely then the claim is subject to dismissal (Greenspan Bros. v State of New York, 122 AD2d 249). Court of Claims Act 10(4) states that a claim for a breach of contract or any other claim not otherwise provided for in the Court of Claims Act shall be filed within six months of the date of accrual, unless claimant serves a notice of intention within that time period upon the Attorney General's office. If a notice of intention is served upon the Attorney General's office then claimant must serve and file his claim within 2 years of the date the claim accrued.

In the event a claim or notice of intention is not filed within six months of the date of accrual, an application may be made for permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10(6). The application must be made before an action asserting a like claim against a citizen of the state would be barred under the provisions of the CPLR. CPLR 213 states an action for a contract or any other action not specifically provided for must be commenced within six years of the date of accrual.

Movant's cause of action accrued on April 26, 2003. While movant has not been idle and has been investigating his case, he has done nothing to toll the statute of limitations. It appears from movant's papers movant served a claim upon defendant and filed the claim in the clerk's office on April 23, 2009. Movant did not serve a notice of intention or a claim within six months of the date of accrual. Movant served the instant motion upon the Attorney General's Office on January 14, 2010, and subsequently filed it in the clerk's office on January 19, 2010. Both of these dates are far outside the statute of limitations date which expired in April 2009.

The remainder of defendant's opposition is moot.

Based upon the foregoing, movant's application for permission to file a late claim is denied.

June 21, 2010

Hauppauge, New York

James J. Lack

Judge of the Court of Claims


1. The following papers have been read and considered on movant's motion: Notice of Motion dated January 14, 2010 and filed January 19, 2010; Affidavit of Kalu Igwe with annexed Exhibits A-I dated January 14, 2010 and filed January 19, 2010; Affirmation in Opposition of Todd A. Schall, Esq. dated February 19, 2010 and filed February 22, 2010.

2. Movant brings the action against the "New York State Lottery". The Court sua sponte amends the caption to read The State of New York as the properly named Defendant.