From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seven v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 30, 2015
# 2015-045-010 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 30, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-045-009 Claim No. 119576 Motion No. M-86111

03-30-2015

ALON SEVEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Alon Seven, Pro Se, No Appearance Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Kimberly A. Kinirons, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(2)(7) and (8) and Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9, 10 and 11 due to improper claim, failure to serve claim on defendant, failure to state a cause of action.

Case information


UID:

2015-045-009

Claimant(s):

ALON SEVEN

Claimant short name:

SEVEN

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

The caption has been amended, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the proper defendant.

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

119576

Motion number(s):

M-86111

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA

Claimant's attorney:

Alon Seven, Pro Se, No Appearance

Defendant's attorney:

Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Kimberly A. Kinirons, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

March 30, 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 with annexed Exhibits A-C.

Defendant, the State of New York, has brought this pre-answer motion pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(2)(7) and (8) and Court of Claims Act §§ 8, 9, 10 and 11 seeking an order dismissing the claim on the grounds that the claim is jurisdictionally defective. Claimant, Alon Seven, a pro se litigant, has not opposed this motion.

Defendant argues that the claim fails to meet the pleading requirements of the Court of Claims Act § 11(b).

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 [2003]).

The claim in this matter is written in a disjointed and confusing fashion. An independent reading of the claim does not provide a reader with a clear understanding of the alleged wrongs complained of in this action and the related legal basis for claimant's allegations. Thus, this Court must dismiss the claim in this matter due to claimant's failure to plead his claim in compliance with Court of Claims Act § 11(b) (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]; see also Rivera v State of New York, 52 AD3d 1075 [3d Dept 2008]).

Additionally, defendant argues that the claim has not been filed and served in accordance with the time requirements set out in CCA §§ 10(3), 10(3-b) and 11. In support defendant has filed an Affidavit attesting to the fact that it was never served with the claim.

The Court of Appeals has long held that "[b]ecause 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" (Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). Accordingly, a claimant who has not met the literal requirements of the Court of Claims Act has not properly commenced his action (Lichtenstein v State of New York, 93 NY2d 911, 913 [1999]). Claimant's failure to serve the claim deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the claim. Thus, the Court is also compelled to dismiss the claim on this ground.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim is granted.

March 30, 2015

Hauppauge, New York

GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Seven v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Mar 30, 2015
# 2015-045-010 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 30, 2015)
Case details for

Seven v. State

Case Details

Full title:ALON SEVEN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Mar 30, 2015

Citations

# 2015-045-010 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Mar. 30, 2015)