From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted March 28, 2001.

April 16, 2001.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated December 16, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the claim.

Matthew A. Kaufman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and Julie S. Mereson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed, and failure to comply with the service requirements therein results in a lack of jurisdiction (see, Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 721; Pagano v. New York State Thruway Auth., 235 A.D.2d 408). Here, the claimant's service of his notice of intention to file a claim by express mail was improper, as that is not one of the authorized methods of service under Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) (see, Turley v. State of New York,[3rd Dept., Jan. 18, 2001]; Negron v. State of New York, 257 A.D.2d 652; Hodge v. State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 766). Thus, no jurisdiction was acquired, and the claim was properly dismissed (see, Court of Claims Act § 10; Scott v. State of New York, 204 A.D.2d 424).


Summaries of

Martinez v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 16, 2001
282 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Martinez v. State

Case Details

Full title:MAXIMO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 16, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 580 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

Wynter v. State

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that if a claim is served upon the Attorney General by mail, it…

Williams v. State

The Court of Claims Act further requires that if a claim is served upon the Attorney General by mail, it must…