From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2020
181 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)

Opinion

365 CA 18–01698

03-20-2020

Glasco WRIGHT, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 126445.)

GLASCO WRIGHT, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.


GLASCO WRIGHT, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant, a pro se inmate, appeals from an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim. We affirm. Claimant concedes that he served the claim by regular mail. Because he served the claim by regular mail, "the Court of Claims was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim" ( Tuszynski v. State of New York, 156 A.D.3d 1472, 1472–1473, 65 N.Y.S.3d 837 [4th Dept. 2017] ; see generally Court of Claims Act § 11[a] ).


Summaries of

Wright v. State

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 20, 2020
181 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
Case details for

Wright v. State

Case Details

Full title:Glasco WRIGHT, Claimant–Appellant, v. STATE of New York…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 20, 2020

Citations

181 A.D.3d 1332 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)
119 N.Y.S.3d 748

Citing Cases

Herbert v. State

Inasmuch as the filing and service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 are jurisdictional in nature,…