Opinion
# 2016-041-015 Claim No. 127120 Motion No. M-87875
03-29-2016
CHARLES ADAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
CHARLES ADAMS Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Edward J. Curtis, Jr. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Claim is dismissed since it was not served on the Attorney General in the manner strictly required by the Court of Claims Act.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-041-015 |
| Claimant(s): | CHARLES ADAMS |
| Claimant short name: | ADAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption is amended to state the only proper defendant. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 127120 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87875 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | CHARLES ADAMS Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Edward J. Curtis, Jr. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 29, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 3211 and the Court of Claims Act to dismiss the claim. In particular, defendant asserts that claimant failed to serve the claim upon the Attorney General in the manner required by law. Claimant opposes the motion.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that a copy of the claim be timely served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
This requirement is jurisdictional in nature:
"In order to properly commence an action in the Court of Claims, the claim must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon the Attorney General within the times provided for filing (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [a] [I]). Failure to comply with either the filing or service provisions of the Court of Claims Act results in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction requiring dismissal of the claim" (Tooks v State of New York, 40 AD3d 1347, 1348 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007]; see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Authority,75 NY2d 721, 723 [1989]).
Claimant is required to satisfy the "literal notice requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11" (Femminella v State of New York, 71 AD3d 1319 [3d Dept 2010]). Any manner of service other than personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested, is insufficient to strictly fulfill the statutory criteria (Femminella 71 AD3d at 1319).
Defendant offers proof that the claim was served by claimant on it by certified mail without request for a return receipt.
In opposition, claimant provides a "Proof of Delivery" letter from the US Postal Service showing that the claim was delivered to the Attorney General by certified mail. Claimant's submissions do not show that he requested a return receipt as required by the Court of Claims Act.
Defendant has provided uncontroverted proof that the claim was not served on the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested, the manner strictly required by the Court of Claims Act:
"Alternative mailings which do not equate to certified mail, return receipt requested, are inadequate and do not comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(a)" (Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766, 767 [3d Dept 1995]; see, Schaeffer v State of New York, 145 Misc.2d 135, 138 [Ct Cl 1989]: "section 11 still requires that a return receipt be requested.").
The defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. The claim is dismissed.
March 29, 2016
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. Notice of Motion, filed January 5, 2016; 2. Affirmation of Edward J. Curtis, Jr., dated December 30, 2015, and annexed exhibit; 3. Letter of Charles Adams, dated February 9, 2016, and USPS attachments.