Opinion
05-22-2024
Davian FURRS, appellant, v. STATE of New York, respondent, et al., defendants.
Getz & Braverman, P.C. (Michael H. Zhu, Esq. P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Matthew W. Grieco and Anthony R. Raduazo of counsel), for respondent.
Getz & Braverman, P.C. (Michael H. Zhu, Esq. P.C., New York, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Matthew W. Grieco and Anthony R. Raduazo of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., PAUL WOOTEN, LARA J. GENOVESI, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a claim to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8–b, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Richard E. Sise, J.), dated March 17, 2022. The order granted the motion of the defendant State of New York to dismiss the claim insofar as asserted against it for lack of jurisdiction based on the claimant’s failure to properly verify the claim.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The claimant commenced this claim to recover damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8–b. The defendant State of New York (hereinafter the defendant) moved to dismiss the claim insofar as asserted against it for lack of jurisdiction based on the claimant’s failure to properly verify the claim as required by Court of Claims Act § 8-b(4). The Court of Claims granted the defendant’s motion. The claimant appeals.
"Under section 8 of the Court of Claims Act, the State has waived its sovereign immunity from liability provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article [§§ 8–12]" (Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 277, 280, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "The Act contains several conditions that must be met in order to assert a claim against the State" (id.). Specifically, "Court of Claims Act § 8–b(4) … states that the claim shall be verified by the claimant" (Long v. State of New York, 7 N.Y.3d 269, 276, 819 N.Y.S.2d 679, 852 N.E.2d 1150 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]; see Court of Claims Act § 8–b[4]). "Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed" (Long v. State of New York, 7 N.Y.3d at 276, 819 N.Y.S.2d 679, 852 N.E.2d 1150 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 911, 913, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218). Thus, a claimant’s failure to verify his or her claim in compliance with the statute mandates its dismissal (see Long v. State of New York, 7 N.Y.3d at 276, 819 N.Y.S.2d 679, 852 N.E.2d 1150). "When presented with an issue of statutory interpretation, the court’s primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" (id. at 273, 819 N.Y.S.2d 679, 852 N.E.2d 1150 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Here, the Court of Claims properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim insofar as asserted against it, since it was not "verified by the claimant" (Long v. State, 7 N.Y.3d at 276, 819 N.Y.S.2d 679, 852 N.E.2d 1150; see Santos v. State of New York, 92 A.D.3d 590, 938 N.Y.S.2d 799; Taylor v. State of New York, 55 A.D.3d 414, 864 N.Y.S.2d 917).
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, GENOVESI and DOWLING, JJ., concur.