New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
WHITE v. TAMIKA DORTCH, KENNETH M. PERRY, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, GEORGE B. LEWIS, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, MARTIN GOLDBERG, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, KEVIN O'DONNELL, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, CHARLES J. HYNES, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, et al., # 2017-054-021, Claim No. 130288, Motion No. M-91348

Synopsis

Service upon the State by regular mail. No jurisdiction.

Case information

UID: 2017-054-021
Claimant(s): ERIK WHITE, TAMARSHI BATTICE, LANETTE DAVIS, LAQUASIA WHITE, KIARA BRYANT, QUINTASIA HARRIS
Claimant short name: WHITE
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): TAMIKA DORTCH, KENNETH M. PERRY, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, GEORGE B. LEWIS, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, MARTIN GOLDBERG, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, KEVIN O'DONNELL, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, CHARLES J. HYNES, ESQ., in his Individual and Official Capacity, et al.
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 130288
Motion number(s): M-91348
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: ERIK WHITE
Pro se
Defendant's attorney: HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Nicole M. Procida, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: January 8, 2018
City: White Plains
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the State's unopposed motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits

On October 2, 2017, the State received a copy of the claim by regular mail (State's Ex. A). The State now brings this pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim based upon claimants' unauthorized manner of service upon the State by regular mail.

Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i) provides that service upon the State "shall be" by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail is not a manner of service authorized by Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632 [2d Dept 2014]).

The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act 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 [1992]). A failure to comply with any of the service provisions set forth in Court of Claims Act 10 and 11 is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007] ["(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 [2d Dept 2001]).

Accordingly, the State's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 130288 is hereby GRANTED.

January 8, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims