New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
BARNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-054-093, Claim No. 129940, Motion No. M-92725

Synopsis

Service by regular mail, claim dismissed.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-093
Claimant(s): CHRISTIN BARNES
Claimant short name: BARNES
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 129940
Motion number(s): M-92725
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: CHRISTIN BARNES
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Christina Calabrese, 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 Exhibits

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.

Claim No. 129940 alleges that on February 2, 2017, during claimant's incarceration at Greene Correctional Facility, he was assaulted by two inmates. On April 3, 2017, claimant served the Attorney General's office with a Notice of Intention to File a Claim by certified mail, return receipt requested (Ex. B). On July 10, 2017, claimant served the Attorney General's office with a copy of the claim by regular mail (Ex. C).

Service by regular mail is not an authorized manner of service under Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632 [2d Dept 2014]). 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 set forth in Court of Claims Act 11 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 State's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 129940 is hereby GRANTED.

September 20, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims