THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2017-054-014, Claim No. 125497, Motion No. M-91161
Claim served by regular mail and filed beyond the time mandated for filing service. Claim dismissed.
|Claimant(s):||ANGEL L. ALVARADO BANCH|
|Claimant short name:||BANCH|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
|Footnote (defendant name) :|
|Claimant's attorney:||ANGEL L. ALVARADO BANCH
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Anthony Rotondi, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||November 16, 2017|
|See also (multicaptioned case)|
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss:
Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibits
Defendant moves to dismiss Claim No. 125497 due to lack of jurisdiction based upon improper and untimely service of the claim.
This pro se inmate claim fails to set forth a cognizable cause of action for relief and asserts accrual dates of April 1999; June 21, 1999 and July 24, 2013 (Defendant's Ex. A, ¶¶ 4, 5). On January 7, 2015, the claim was filed with the Court and served upon defendant by ordinary mail (Defendant's Ex. A). Defendant raised the jurisdictional defenses in its answer served on February 13, 2015 (Defendant's Ex. B).
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 ). 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). 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  ["(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]).
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]) and the claim was served and filed well beyond the time mandated for filing service by the Court of Claims Act (see Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121 [3d Dept 2013]).
Accordingly, defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 125497 is hereby GRANTED.
November 16, 2017
White Plains, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims