Opinion
# 2015-049-010 Claim No. 124650 Motion No. M-85665
01-28-2015
BLACKWELL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Laverne Blackwell, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
On the Court's own motion, the claim is dismissed. Claimant does not dispute that the claim was served by Priority Mail, an unauthorized method of service under Court of Claims Act § 11(a).
Case information
UID: | 2015-049-010 |
Claimant(s): | LAVERNE BLACKWELL |
Claimant short name: | BLACKWELL |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 124650 |
Motion number(s): | M-85665 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
Claimant's attorney: | Laverne Blackwell, Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | January 28, 2015 |
City: | Albany |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The claim herein was filed July 10, 2014, without evidence showing that the claim had been properly served. No answer was filed.
By Order to Show Cause dated September 10, 2014, this Court directed pro se claimant Laverne Blackwell to show cause why this claim should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(a), and stated that the Attorney General may make any submission it deemed appropriate regarding the Court's jurisdiction over this matter. The Order was served on claimant by regular and certified mail return receipt requested.
Blackwell submitted a response, which consists of a letter with a copy of USPS tracking information. The letter states that she contacted someone in the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG"), who informed her that the "claim information" that she sent would be delivered to an Assistant Attorney General. The tracking page indicates that her claim was sent by "Priority Mail 2-Day."
For its part, the Attorney General submitted the affidavit of Min C. Rhee, a clerk in the Attorney General's Claims Bureau, and the affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Paterno. Rhee attests that she conducted a "thorough search" of the Attorney General's computer filing system, to determine whether any documents had been served on the OAG in the matter at issue. Her search found the following:
• On September 5, 2012 a Notice of Intention to File a Claim was personally served on the City University of New York, and was forwarded to the OAG on September 11, 2012.
• On September 10, 2012 a Notice of Intention to File a Claim was personally served on the New York City Managing Attorney Office.
• On June 17, 2014 correspondence was received by the New York City OAG by USPS Priority Mail.
• On July 10, 2014 a letter from the Court was received, acknowledging a claim was filed with the Court and was given claim number 124650.
Paterno affirms that the OAG received correspondence from claimant on June 17, 2014, via USPS Priority Mail. The document is attached to defendant's papers (without exhibits), and in the last sentence therein it is characterized it as a "settlement demand letter." As a result, the OAG treated the document as correspondence. Also attached is a copy of the envelope in which it was mailed. The envelope bears a $2.90 postage mark and there is no indication that it was served by certified mail, return receipt requested. Paterno states that if this document were to be considered a claim, claimant failed to serve it in accordance with the Court of Claims Act, and therefore the claim should be dismissed.
Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) provides in pertinent part that:
"[A] copy [of the claim] shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for filing with the clerk of the court."
Compliance with these service requirements is a jurisdictional prerequisite for bringing suit in this Court (see Fulton v State of New York, 35 AD3d 977 [3d Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Govan v State of New York, 301 AD2d 757 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). The burden of proving proper service is on the claimant by a preponderance of the evidence (see Boudreau v Ivanov, 154 AD2d 638, 639 [2d Dept 1989]; Woods v State of New York, UID No. 2011-013-001 [Ct Cl, Patti, J., Jan. 6, 2011]).
Here, claimant's undisputed manner of service of the only document that might be characterized as a claim, Priority Mail, did not comply with section 11(a)(i) (see Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2014]). The fact that claimant's notice of intention was served personally does not vest this Court with jurisdiction, so long as the claim was not served in accordance with the Court of Claims Act (see Cross v State of New York, UID No. 2011-015-214, [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Jan. 10, 2011] [dismissing claim served by regular mail, although notice of intention was properly served by certified mail, return receipt requested]). In the absence of valid service, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and it must be dismissed
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that claim no. 124650 is dismissed.
January 28, 2015
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered:
1. The Court's Order to Show Cause, dated September 10, 2014.
2. Claimant's correspondence and annexed exhibits, dated October 16, 2014.
3. Defendant's Affirmation and annexed exhibits, dated October 22, 2014.