New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
GEICO A/S/O FISHER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-054-092, Claim No. 131610, Motion No. M-92572

Synopsis

Motion denied, service improper.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-092
Claimant(s): GEICO A/S/O ADRIENNE FISHER
Claimant short name: GEICO A/S/O FISHER
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 131610
Motion number(s): M-92572
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: LAW OFFICE OF BRYAN M. KULAK
By: Suzanne Konunchuk, Esq.
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Jeane L. Strickland Smith, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 20, 2018
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 State's unopposed motion to dismiss:

Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibit

The State moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that the claim was not properly served. Claimant has not submitted any opposition to the motion.

This subrogation claim seeking property damage as a result of a motor vehicle accident on March 27, 2018 was filed with the Court on June 20, 2018. On June 25, 2018, a copy of the claim was served upon the Attorney General's office by Priority Mail Express (Defendant's Ex. A), which is not a proper method of service under Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i) (see Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2014] [claim dismissed in jurisdictional grounds because service by priority mail is not an authorized method of service]).

The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act 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]). Accordingly, the claim warrants dismissal.

Thus, the State's unopposed motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

September 20, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims