|Claimant short name:||SIDER|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Judge:||James J. Lack|
|Claimant's attorney:||Law Offices of Jack Stuart Beige & Associates, LLP
By: John G. Sommers, Esq.
|Defendant's attorney:||Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff
By: Louis A. Carotenuto, Esq.
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||June 30, 2010|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
This is a claim for personal injuries to Vernon Sider (hereinafter "claimant") due to the alleged negligence of defendant. The accident occurred on August 21, 2007, on the Northern State Parkway in Nassau County, New York.
Claimant served a claim upon the Attorney General's office and filed a claim in the Clerk's Office based upon the above incident on November 18, 2008 and November 21, 2008, respectively. Claimant had previously served a Notice of Intention upon the Attorney General's office on November 13, 2007. Defendant served and filed its answer on December 17, 2008.
At a preliminary conference held on January 20, 2009, my law secretary pointed out certain jurisdictional affirmative defenses to claimant's attorney. My law secretary suggested claimant's attorney may want to file a new claim, not an amended claim.(1)
Defendant now moves to dismiss the amended claim for failing to comply with Court of Claims Act §11(b).(2)
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. There must be sufficient detail to enable the State to investigate (Schwartzberg v State of New York, 121 Misc 2d 1095, aff'd 98 AD2d 902). Pursuant to the Court of Claims Act, a claim must include the time when and place where the claim arose, the nature of the claim, and items of damage or injuries sustained. If the original document does not include all that is essential to constitute a claim, the document is jurisdictionally defective (Grande v State of New York, 160 Misc 2d 383) and the claim is subject to dismissal even if there is no prejudice to defendant (Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782 lv denied 64 NY2d 607).
As detailed in the claim and the amended claim, the description of the location is sufficient as it makes reference to the construction project. This area would be a limited space and under the control of defendant. In addition, the Court finds the description of the condition alleged to be sufficient.
Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
June 30, 2010
Hauppauge, New York
James J. Lack
Judge of the Court of Claims
1. Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by an amended claim (Grande v State of New York, 160 Misc 2d 383).
2. The following papers have been read and considered on claimant's motion: Notice of Motion dated March 11, 2010 and filed March 15, 2010; Affirmation in Support of Motion of Louis A. Carotenuto, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-J dated March 11, 2010 and filed March 15, 2010; Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant's Motion of John G. Sommers, Esq. dated March 30, 2010 and filed April 1, 2010.