Opinion
# 2018-054-093 Claim No. 129940 Motion No. M-92725
09-20-2018
CHRISTIN BARNES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CHRISTIN BARNES Pro Se HON. BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General for the State of New York By: Christina Calabrese, Assistant Attorney General
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