Opinion
# 2012-048-026 Claim No. 119814 Motion No. M-80374
01-10-2012
MORALES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
The Court dismissed the Claim, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter based on Claimant's failure comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i). Case information
UID: 2012-048-026 Claimant(s): DEMETRIUS RYAN MORALES Claimant short name: MORALES Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 119814 Motion number(s): M-80374 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GLEN T. BRUENING DEMETRIUS RYAN MORALES, Pro Se Claimant's attorney: No Appearance HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General of the State of New York No Appearance Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: January 10, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Demetrius Ryan Morales filed a Claim on May 5, 2011 seeking damages based on his alleged illegal re-sentencing during his incarceration and based upon his alleged involuntary confinement to the Central New York Psychiatric Center located in Marcy, New York. Claimant has not filed an Affidavit of Service of the Claim, and Defendant has not filed an Answer. In an Order to Show Cause returnable November 9, 2011, the Court noted that, upon review of its file, Claimant may have failed to comply with the service requirements of Section 11 of the Court of Claims Act. The Court therefore directed that Claimant show cause why his Claim should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by reason of non-compliance with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a). The Order further invited the Attorney General to submit papers in response to the Court's Order. A copy of the Order was mailed to the Claimant and delivered to the Attorney General on September 15, 2011. Neither the Claimant nor the Attorney General submitted papers in response to the Order.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) mandates that a copy of the Claim be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the Attorney General within the applicable time period provided in Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act. Failure to serve the Attorney General with the Claim divests the Court of subject matter jurisdiction (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 723 [1989]; Klopfle v New York State Thruway Auth., 177 AD2d 1059, 1059 [4th Dept 1991]). Here, Claimant has not filed an Affidavit of Service or any other evidence that service was made. Therefore, the Court concludes that Claimant failed to serve the Claim on the Attorney General, and thereby failed to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d at 723). Accordingly, Claim No. 119814 is dismissed.
January 10, 2012
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Order to Show Cause, filed September 15, 2011;
Claim, filed May 5, 2011, with attached Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR 1101 (f) and Certified Copy of an Order dated October 20, 2010.