New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BLADE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-033-397, Claim No. 118040, Motion No. M-77993


Case information

UID: 2010-033-397
Claimant(s): MOUSSA BLADE
Claimant short name: BLADE
Footnote (claimant name) :
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 118040
Motion number(s): M-77993
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: James J. Lack
Claimant's attorney: Moussa Blade, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General
By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: June 30, 2010
City: Hauppauge
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)


This is a claim by Moussa Blade (hereinafter "claimant") for damage to claimant's property while he was transferred between correctional facilities. The incident allegedly occurred on November 14/15, 2009, at Eastern Correctional Facility, Napanoch, New York.

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on two grounds(1) . First, defendant alleges claimant has not exhausted his administrative remedies as required by Court of Claims Act 10(9). Defendant also alleges claimant served the claim by regular mail.

Claimant offers no opposition to the motion.

Court of Claims Act 11(a) states that a copy of the claim "shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general". The requirement of personal service or service by certified mail, return receipt requested cannot be satisfied by alternate means of mailing. Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766.

Attached to the Court's copy of the claim is an Affidavit of Service. The affidavit indicates that the claim was mailed to the Attorney General's Office and to the Clerk of the Court of Claims by regular mail.

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.

Based upon the foregoing, and without opposition, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted. The Court does not reach the question pursuant to Court of Claims Act 10(9).

June 30, 2010

Hauppauge, New York

James J. Lack

Judge of the Court of Claims

1. The following papers were read and considered on defendant's motion: Notice of Motion dated March 2, 2010 and filed March 3, 2010; Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss of Paul F. Cagino, Esq. with annexed Exhibits A-B dated March 2, 2010 and filed March 3, 2010.