New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SANTIAGO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-015-254, Claim No. 120884, Motion No. M-90612

Synopsis

Claim was dismissed for lack of service.

Case information

UID: 2017-015-254
Claimant(s): JEREMY SANTIAGO
Claimant short name: SANTIAGO
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) : The caption is amended sua sponte to reflect the only properly name defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 120884
Motion number(s): M-90612
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney: Jeremy Santiago, Pro Se
No Appearance
Defendant's attorney: Honorable Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General
By: Paul F. Cagino, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: July 26, 2017
City: Saratoga Springs
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

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

The claim filed on February 3, 2012 alleges the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision failed to provide the claimant appropriate medical treatment from November 27, 2011 to December 3, 2011 while he was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

Defendant contends in support of its dismissal motion that the claim was not served upon the Office of the Attorney General. Defendant's contention 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 indicates that based upon his personal review of the file maintained by the Attorney General there is no record of 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 electronic record-keeping system, and that her search of this system failed to reflect that a claim was served on the Office of the Attorney General in this matter. 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 the service requirement 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]).

Defendant established in support of its motion that the claim was not served upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i). There being no opposition to the motion, and in the absence of any evidence establishing that the claim was served on the Attorney General, dismissal of the claim is required.

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

July 26, 2017

Saratoga Springs, New York

FRANCIS T. COLLINS

Judge of the Court of Claims

The Court considered the following papers:

  1. Notice of motion dated June 16, 2017;
  2. Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino dated June 16, 2017 with exhibit.