Opinion
# 2014-038-526 Claim No. 118447 Motion No. M-84799
06-06-2014
CHRISTOPHER CHANDLER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CHRISTOPHER CHANDLER, Pro se No Appearance ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim granted. Service of the claim by certified mail without return receipt requested is not a manner of service that is authorized by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), and thus, the claim is jurisdictionally defective.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-038-526 |
| Claimant(s): | CHRISTOPHER CHANDLER |
| Claimant short name: | CHANDLER |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption has been amended sua sponte to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant in this claim. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 118447 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84799 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | CHRISTOPHER CHANDLER, Pro se No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 6, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual formerly incarcerated at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF), filed this claim seeking compensation for personal property that was allegedly lost in a fire in claimant's cell at Upstate CF on February 13, 2010. The claim, which was filed on May 24, 2010, was accompanied by an affidavit of service by mail, which reflects that copies of the claim were "placed and submitted within the institutional mailbox located at the Upstate Correctional Facility . . . to be duly mailed and delivered by the United States Postal Service upon . . . [the] Attorney General" (Affidavit of Service, sworn to May 11, 2010). The affidavit of service does not refer to any particular manner of service. In its verified answer, defendant asserted with particularity the defense of lack of jurisdiction based upon improper manner of service, alleging that the claim was served "by Certified Mail, no return receipt service was obtained for the posting of the claim" (Verified Answer, filed June 22, 2010, Third Defense). Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction because while the claim was served by certified mail, no return receipt was requested. Claimant has not submitted opposition to the motion.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that if a claim is served upon the Attorney General by mail, it must be accomplished by certified mail, return receipt requested (CMRRR). The service requirements of the Court of Claims Act must be strictly construed (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722-723 [1989]), and the failure to effect service in the manner required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires dismissal of the claim (see Turley v State of New York, 279 AD2d 819 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 708 [2001]; Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827 [3d Dept 1998]; Young v State of New York and New York State Dept. of Corr. Servs., UID No. 2014-038-515 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Apr. 21, 2014]; Jones v State of New York, UID No. 2014-048-129 [Ct Cl, Bruening, J., Feb. 13, 2014]). Service of the claim by certified mail without a request for a return receipt does not comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), and is a fatal jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the claim (see Schaeffer v State of New York, 145 Misc 2d 135, 138-139 [Ct Cl 1989]).
In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant has demonstrated that the claim was served upon the Attorney General by certified mail, unaccompanied by a request for return receipt (see King Affirmation, ¶¶ 4, 8, Exhibit A). Claimant has not controverted this showing, and as noted above, defendant preserved this jurisdictional defense by raising it with particularity in its verified answer (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [c] [ii]). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that motion number M-84799 is GRANTED, and claim number 118447 is DISMISSED.
June 6, 2014
Albany, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Claim Number 118447, filed May 24, 2010;
(2) Affidavit of Service, sworn to May 11, 2010;
(3) Verified Answer, dated June 18, 2010;
(4) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated March 18, 2014;
(5) Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss, dated March 18, 2014, with Exhibits A-B;
(6) Affidavit of Service, sworn to March 18, 2014.