New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
YOUNGBLOOD v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2019-015-221, Claim No. 120162, Motion No. M-94921

Synopsis

Defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for improper service was granted, and the claim dismissed.

Case information

UID: 2019-015-221
Claimant(s): ANDRE YOUNGBLOOD
Claimant short name: YOUNGBLOOD
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 120162
Motion number(s): M-94921
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: No Appearance
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Letitia James, Attorney General
By: Glenn C. King, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: December 27, 2019
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) on the ground it was not served upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i).

Claimant, a former inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), filed a claim seeking damages for DOCCS' alleged failure to provide medical treatment for his shoulder pain on July 28, 2011. According to the Affidavit of Service filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court of Claims, an undisclosed document was sent to an undisclosed addressee by certified mail, return receipt requested, by personal delivery and by ordinary mail on an undisclosed date (Affidavit of Service filed with the claim). In other words, all of the boxes on this pre-printed Affidavit of Service form were checked with no indication of what was served or who it was served upon.

Defendant's contention that the claim was not served upon the Attorney General is supported by both defense counsel's affirmation and the affidavit of Debra L. Mantell, Legal Assistant II in the Albany Office of the Attorney General. Defense counsel states that based upon his personal review of the file maintained by the Office of the Attorney General there is no record indicating service of a claim in this matter. Ms. Mantell states in her affidavit that it is the usual business practice of the Attorney General's Office to record the receipt of claims in its digital case-management system, and that her searches of this system failed to reflect that a claim in this matter was served on the Office of the Attorney General.

The State's waiver of immunity under section 8 of the Court of Claims Act is contingent upon claimant's compliance with the specific conditions to suit set forth in article II of the Court of Claims Act (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 206 [2003]). Among these conditions is that contained in Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i) which provides, in relevant part, that a copy of the claim "shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for filing with the clerk of the court." The failure to serve a claim upon the Attorney General is a non-waivable jurisdictional defect which divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction (Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 723 [1989]; Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2013]; Johnson v New York State, 71 AD3d 1355, 1355 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; cf. Court of Claims Act 11 [c] [ii]).

In support of its motion defendant established that the claim was not served upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i) and the affidavit of service filed in the Clerk's office fails to establish otherwise. Critically absent from the claimant's affidavit of service is any indication of what was served, who was served or the date of service. There being no opposition to the motion and in the absence of any evidence establishing that the claim was served upon the Attorney General, dismissal of the claim is required.

Accordingly, defendant's motion is granted, and the claim is dismissed.

December 27, 2019

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers Considered:

  1. Notice of motion dated November 15, 2019;
  2. Affirmation in support dated November 15, 2019, with Exhibit A.