Claim dismissed, not timely served on defendant.
|Claimant short name:||TORRES|
|Footnote (claimant name) :|
|Defendant(s):||THE STATE OF NEW YORK|
|Footnote (defendant name) :||The Court has, sua sponte, amended the caption to reflect the only proper party defendant.|
|Claimant's attorney:||ANTHONY TORRES
|Defendant's attorney:||HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Acting Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Thomas R. Monjeau, Assistant Attorney General
|Third-party defendant's attorney:|
|Signature date:||May 22, 2018|
|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 Affirmation in Support and Exhibits
Claim No. 126160 alleges a claim for wrongful confinement arising during claimant's incarceration at Eastern NY Correctional Facility. Claimant was issued a misbehavior report and, after a determination of guilt, he was confined in the special housing unit until his release on September 23, 2014. Claimant brought his wrongful confinement claim after his conviction was overturned by a successful CPLR article 78 proceeding. The first claim served upon defendant was properly rejected by defendant because it was not verified (Exs. A, B).
Claimant served a copy of a verified claim upon defendant on April 21, 2015 and a claim was filed with the Court on May 15, 2015. Defendant served claimant with an answer dated May 18, 2015, asserting the affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction due to claimant's failure to timely serve and file a claim within 90 days after the accrual of the claim (Ex. D, §§ 4-7).
It is well settled that a cause of action for wrongful confinement accrues on the date when the confinement terminated (see Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 [3d Dept 2011] [wrongful confinement claim accrued upon release from keeplock]; Johnson v State of New York, 95 AD3d 1455 [3d Dept 2012] [wrongful confinement claim accrued upon release from special housing unit]). Here, claimant's confinement terminated on September 23, 2014 and his cause of action for wrongful confinement accrued on that date. The instant claim was not timely commenced because it was served upon defendant on April 21, 2015 and filed with the Court on May 15, 2015, well beyond the 90 days after the wrongful confinement claim accrued (Court of Claims Act § 10 [3-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 ). 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]). 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). Thus, this Court is without jurisdiction over this claim.
Accordingly, defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 126160 is hereby GRANTED.
May 22, 2018
White Plains, New York
Judge of the Court of Claims