New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SANDER v. Government of the State of New York, # 2018-054-102, Claim No. 131726, Motion No. M-92792

Synopsis

Unverified claim sent by priority mail, claim does not allege a cognizable cause of action against the State, untimely served, claim dismissed.

Case information

UID: 2018-054-102
Claimant(s): MARIE SANDER
Claimant short name: SANDER
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): Government of the State of New York
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 131726
Motion number(s): M-92792
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: MARIE SANDER
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Matthew H. Feinberg, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: October 2, 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

On July 16, 2018, claimant served the Attorney General's office with an unverified claim by priority mail (Defendant's Ex. A). By letter dated July 17, 2018, the State rejected the claim as a nullity because it was unverified (Defendant's Ex. B). The claim alleges that the City of Yonkers unlawfully condemned claimant's property on June 4, 2014 (Claim 7). As such, the claim does not allege a cognizable cause of action against the State.

The State moves to dismiss the claim on numerous grounds, including that the claim was not properly verified and served, was untimely, and fails to state a cause of action upon which relief which may be had against the State. Claimant does not oppose the motion.

The Court finds that the claim is jurisdictionally defective and warrants dismissal because the claim was not properly verified as required by Court of Claims Act 11 (b) (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 210 [2003]) and the claim was not properly served as priority mail 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 on jurisdictional grounds because service by priority mail is not an authorized method of service]). Additionally, the claim is untimely and does not allege a cognizable cause of action upon which relief may be had against the State of New York based upon a condemnation by the City of Yonkers on June 4, 2014.

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

October 2, 2018

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims