Opinion
# 2015-045-015 Claim No. 125405 Motion No. M-86230
05-07-2015
JNP HOLDING CORP. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Robert M. Foley, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Blaise W. Constantakes, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to 3211 (a) (2) lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 3211 (a) (3) lack of capacity to sue and 3211 (a) (7) failure to state a cause of action. Also failure to comply with Uniform Rules 206, however rules are not jurisdictional and can be waived.
Case information
| UID: | 2015-045-015 |
| Claimant(s): | JNP HOLDING CORP. |
| Claimant short name: | JNP HOLDING CORP. |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125405 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86230 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA |
| Claimant's attorney: | Robert M. Foley, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Blaise W. Constantakes, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 7, 2015 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant's Notice of Motion, Defendant's Affirmation in Support, Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition, Defendant's Reply Affirmation and the filed Claim.
Defendant, the State of New York, has brought this pre-answer motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2), (3) and (7) seeking an order dismissing the claim. Claimant, JNP Holding Corp., has opposed this motion.
Defendant argues that the claim is jurisdictionally defective for failing to comply with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), 22 NYCRR 206.6 (d) and EDPL § 504. Specifically, in regard to 22 NYCRR 206.6 (d), defendant argues that the claim does not comply with the requirements of the section by failing to contain a specific description of the subject property giving its location and quantity. Additionally, the original and all filed copies of such claim should have annexed thereto a duplicate of the official appropriation map or maps filed in the office of the commissioner of the department involved in the taking, covering the property for which the claim is filed. It is undisputed that the claim did not have an appropriation map annexed to it. However, a failure to comply with 22 NYCRR 206.6 (d) does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the action. The Court may, for good cause shown and the interests of justice, waive compliance with any of the Uniform Rules of the Court of Claims, other than sections 206.2 and 206.3 (see 22 NYCRR 206.1 [b]).
In regard to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), defendant argues that the claim is jurisdictionally defective since it did not include sufficient information and detail regarding the time and place when the claim arose, the specific nature of the claim and an itemization of the damages allegedly sustained.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires in pertinent part that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, [and] the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained." These requirements are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with in order to properly initiate an action against defendant (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]). "The Court of Claims Act does not require [defendant] to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 208 [2003]).
The claim in this matter states that the claim arose on January 5, 2012; that it arose out of a widening by defendant of New York State Route 25 which caused claimant's property to be reduced in the front portion which bordered New York State Route 25; that the taking occurred at the northwest corner of Herricks Road and New York State Route 25 and continued in a westerly direction along New York State Route 25; and that claimant suffered from the direct and indirect taking of property in the sum of $830,000.00 with a temporary easement of $25,000.00. Thus, the Court finds that the claim satisfies the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) does not require the filing of an appropriation map with the claim. EDPL § 504 (b) requires reasonable identification by reference to the acquisition map or otherwise, of the property affected by the acquisition, and the condemnee's interest therein. The defendant as condemnor and filer of the appropriation map cannot argue in good faith that it was prejudiced by the failure of claimant to attach the map to the claim. The Court must also be mindful of the paramount Constitutional requirement of just compensation under these circumstances (90 Front St. Assoc., LLC v State of New York, 79 AD3d 708 [2d Dept 2010]). Lastly, it should be noted that the amendment procedures set forth in the CPLR are applicable to the EDPL (see EDPL 703).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is denied. Additionally, claimant shall within 30 days from the date this Decision and Order is filed serve and file an amended claim with the appropriation map attached to it as well as a paragraph 4 (a) wherein claimant asserts ownership of the subject property.
May 7, 2015
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims