New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
CARVER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2021-054-022, Claim No. 132905, Motion No. M-96471

Synopsis

Motion to dismiss granted, improper service

Case information

UID: 2021-054-022
Claimant(s): LEROY CARVER
Claimant short name: CARVER
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 132905
Motion number(s): M-96471
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: WALTER RIVERA
Claimant's attorney: LEROY CARVER
Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: HON. LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General for the State of New York
By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: May 27, 2021
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 Claim No. 132905

Notice of Motion, Attorney's Supporting Affirmation and Exhibit

On April 8, 2019, Claim No. 132905 was filed with the Court alleging that during claimant's incarceration in the New York State Correctional System claimant's property was lost or stolen on or about September 3, 2018. A copy of the claim was served upon the State on January 6, 2021 by regular mail. The State brings this pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the claim was untimely served and filed and improperly served upon the State by regular mail. Claimant did not submit any opposition to the motion.

Service by regular mail is not an authorized manner of service under Court of Claims Act 11 (a) (i) (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, 497-498 [2d Dept 2001]). In light of the Court's determination that the claim was not properly served upon the State, the Court need not address the issue of whether the claim was timely.

The State's unopposed motion to dismiss Claim No. 132048 is hereby GRANTED.

May 27, 2021

White Plains, New York

WALTER RIVERA

Judge of the Court of Claims