From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blalock v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 31, 2015
# 2015-048-177 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 31, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-048-177 Claim No. 125138 Motion No. M-85987

03-31-2015

MAURICE BLALOCK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Maurice Blalock, Pro Se No Appearance HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq. Assistant Attorney General


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:

2015-048-177

Claimant(s):

MAURICE BLALOCK

Claimant short name:

BLALOCK

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

125138

Motion number(s):

M-85987

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

GLEN T. BRUENING

Claimant's attorney:

Maurice Blalock, Pro Se No Appearance

Defendant's attorney:

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York By: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq. Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

March 31, 2015

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant, Maurice Blalock, commenced this action seeking damages for alleged malicious prosecution and wrongful confinement while an inmate at Eastern Correctional Facility (Eastern) located in Ulster County. Specifically, Claimant alleges that he was issued a false Inmate Misbehavior Report on April 3, 2014, that he was found guilty, despite certain errors in the hearing process and, as a result, was wrongfully confined to keeplock until April 16, 2014. Defendant now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) and (8), for an order dismissing the Claim based on Claimant's failure to comply with the service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11. Claimant has not opposed Defendant's motion.

Whether characterized as a Claim for an intentional tort or an unintentional tort, 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 comply with the statutory service requirements "deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction and compels dismissal of the claim" (Maude V. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 82 AD3d 1468, 1469 [3d Dept 2011]; see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722-723 [1989]). Along these lines, alternative mailings, such as express mail or priority mail, do not comply with the statutory requirements and divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Claim (see Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766, 767 [3d Dept 1995]; see also Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943, 943 [3d Dept 2014]). However, any objection or defense based on a Claimant's failure to comply with the manner of service requirement is waived unless specifically raised in the answer or in a pre-answer dismissal motion (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [c] [ii]).

Initially, the Court determines that Defendant preserved its objection to the manner of service of the Claim through the instant application. In support of its motion, defense counsel asserts, among other things, that Claimant's failure to serve the Notice of Intention to File a Claim (Notice of Intention) and the Claim on the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested divests this Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the Claim. Defendant asserts that the Notice of Intention was served by regular mail and was received by the Attorney General's Office on May 15, 2014. Indeed, the Claim alleges that a Notice of Intention was mailed to the Attorney General's Office on May 13, 2014 by "U.S. Postal Service as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11" (Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., Exhibit B, ¶ 76), and Claimant has not disputed Defendant's assertion. Defendant also asserts that the Claim in this action, which was received by the Attorney General's Office on October 20, 2014, was mailed via priority mail (see Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., Exhibit B). Defendant offers a photocopy of the mailing envelope used to mail the Claim to the Attorney General, which bears a stamp indicating it was mailed by "PRIORITY MAIL" (id). The Court notes that the affidavit of service attached to the Claim filed with the Clerk of the Court does not indicate that the Claim was served either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Rather, the affidavit of service attests that the Claim was mailed in a sealed envelope and delivered to prison authorities.

In light of the proof before it, the Court concludes that Claimant did not serve either his Notice of Intention or his Claim upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), thus depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d at 723).

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion No. M-85987 is granted and the Claim is dismissed.

March 31, 2015

Albany, New York

GLEN T. BRUENING

Judge of the Court of Claims

The following papers were read and considered by the Court:

Claim, filed October 20 2014, with attachments;

Notice of Motion, filed November 24, 2014;

Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., dated November 24, 2014,with Exhibits A-B.


Summaries of

Blalock v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 31, 2015
# 2015-048-177 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 31, 2015)
Case details for

Blalock v. State

Case Details

Full title:MAURICE BLALOCK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Mar 31, 2015

Citations

# 2015-048-177 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 31, 2015)