New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
THOMAS v. DR. BENTIVEGNA, DEP. BALDWIN, KATIE INTERFINO, DORA BARRIZO, # 2021-054-007, Claim No. 133640, Motion No. M-96191

Synopsis

Court's Order to Show Cause - Claim dismissed, the Court is without jurisdiction over the claim.

Case information

UID: 2021-054-007
Claimant(s): WILLIAM THOMAS
Claimant short name: THOMAS
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): DR. BENTIVEGNA, DEP. BALDWIN, KATIE INTERFINO, DORA BARRIZO
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 133640
Motion number(s): M-96191
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: WILLIAM THOMAS
Pro se
Defendant's attorney: HON. LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: J. Gardner Ryan, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: March 18, 2021
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 Court's Order to Show Cause as to why the claim should not be dismissed:

Order to Show Cause.................................................................................................1

State's Affirmation and Exhibit................................................................................2

This claim was filed with the Court on September 16, 2019. The State did not file an answer. By Order to Show Cause, the Court directed the parties to submit papers regarding the service of the claim upon the State.

The State submitted an affidavit sworn to on January 25, 2021 by Dawn McNamara, a Legal Assistant II in the Poughkeepsie Regional Office of the Attorney General. McNamara affirmed that a thorough search of the State's computer filing system failed to locate any record of receipt of either a copy of the claim or a Notice of Intention to File a Claim (Ex. 1, 3-4). Claimant did not submit any papers in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.

The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act 10 and 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 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]). Both service and filing of the claim must occur within the statutory time period mandated by the Court of Claims Act (see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d at 724). The Court finds that the State has established that a copy of the claim was not served upon the State. Thus, the Court is without jurisdiction over the claim.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIM IS DISMISSED.

March 18, 2021

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims