Opinion
# 2020-053-517 Claim No. 134147 Motion No. M-95231
05-12-2020
MARQUES SHEFFIELD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
MARQUES SHEFFIELD, Pro se HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Carlton K. Brownell, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The State's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction is granted. The claim was served upon the Attorney General's Office by regular mail depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-053-517 |
| Claimant(s): | MARQUES SHEFFIELD |
| Claimant short name: | SHEFFIELD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 134147 |
| Motion number(s): | M-95231 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | J. DAVID SAMPSON |
| Claimant's attorney: | MARQUES SHEFFIELD, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General BY: Carlton K. Brownell, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 12, 2020 |
| City: | Buffalo |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant Marques A. Sheffield, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed claim no. 134147 on December 13, 2019. In lieu of answering the claim, defendant moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Claimant failed to respond to defendant's motion or otherwise oppose the motion.
In order to commence an action against the State of New York in the Court of Claims, a claim must be filed and a copy served upon the Attorney General personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, within ninety (90) days of accrual of the claim, unless within the same time period, a notice of intention to file a claim is served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, in which event the claim must be filed and served within two (2) years of accrual of a negligence claim or within one (1) year of accrual of an intentional tort (Court of Claims Act §§10 [3]and 11[a] [i]). Both a notice of intention and a claim must be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Service by certified mail, return receipt requested, is not complete until the notice of intention or claim is received in the office of the Attorney General (Court of Claims Act §11[a] [i]).
The filing and service requirements of the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly construed (Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 [1989]). The failure to comply with the service requirements of the Court of Claims Act deprives the Court of jurisdiction, requiring dismissal of the claim (Ivy v State of New York, 27 AD3d 1190 [4th Dept 2006]; Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782 [2d Dept 1984], app denied 64 NY2d 607 [1985]). Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction as the claim was served by regular mail.
On November 5, 2019, claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim upon the Attorney General's Office (Claimant's Exhibit C). Attached to the supporting affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III as Exhibit D is a copy of the envelope in which the notice of intention was served. The envelope shows the remains of the certified mail sticker and is stamped "return receipt requested." The notice of intention initially indicates that the claim arose on or about September 25, 2019, and in the very next sentence indicates that the claim arose at or near the "14th day of August, 2019." As the notice of intention was served on November 5, 2019, it was timely served within ninety (90) days of accrual of the claim whether the August 14, 2019 date or the September 25, 2019 date is used as the date of accrual. Assuming the sufficiency of the notice of intention, claimant then had one year after accrual of an intentional tort cause of action or two years after accrual of a negligence cause of action to file and serve the claim personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
On December 13, 2019, claimant served claim no. 134147 (Defendant's Exhibit A). Attached to the supporting affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III as Exhibit B is a copy of the envelope in which the claim was served. This envelope shows postage of $1.15, an amount insufficient for service by certified mail, especially where, as here, the postage to serve the notice of intention by certified mail cost $6.30 (Compare Exhibits B and D). In addition, this envelope shows none of the markings or indicia of service by certified mail, return receipt requested, as can be seen on the envelope by which the notice of intention was served. Further, claimant has failed to come forward with a copy of a green return receipt card, or a copy of a disbursement request form indicating that he requested the necessary postage to serve the claim by certified mail, return receipt requested, or any evidence of appropriate service. Finally, the affidavit of service attached to the claim merely indicates that the claim was to be personally delivered to the Court Clerk of the Court of Claims. There is no indication in the affidavit of service of any attempt to serve the Attorney General with a copy of the claim.
Based on the evidence presented, the Court concludes that the claim was served upon the Attorney General's Office by regular mail, thus, depriving the Court of subject matter jurisdiction and requiring dismissal of the claim (Tuszynski v State of New York, 156 AD3d 1472 [4th Dept 2017]; Zoeckler v State of New York, 109 AD3d 1133 [4th Dept 2013]).
Because the Court is constrained to dismiss the claim as it was improperly served by regular mail, the Court does not reach defendant's alternative grounds that the claim fails to state a cause of action and was untimely served.
Accordingly, defendant's motion no. M-95231 is granted and claim no. 134147 is dismissed.
Attached to the claim as filed and served is a copy of claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 seeking an order "precluding the claimant from giving evidence at the trial ... as to the following matters: Harassment and the illegally destruction of property ....[sic]" Presumably, Mr. Sheffield did not intend to seek an order precluding himself from giving testimony at trial, although that is the relief he requested by his motion papers. Moreover, claimant relies on CPLR 3042(d) in support of his motion. CPLR 3042 (d) provides that the Court may penalize a party who, when served with a demand for a bill of particulars, willfully fails to provide particulars which the Court finds ought to have been provided. As neither party has served a demand for a bill of particulars on the other party, neither could be penalized for failing to respond to such a demand. Claimant's motion in this regard has not been assigned a motion no. If it had been assigned a motion no., claimant's motion would be denied. Here, however, claimant's claim no. 134147 has been dismissed. As a result, insofar as claimant's motion papers as annexed to his claim may be considered a motion, it is denied as moot.
May 12, 2020
Buffalo, New York
J. DAVID SAMPSON
Judge of the Court of Claims The following were read and considered by the Court: 1. Notice of motion and affirmation of Assistant Attorney General Carlton K. Brownell, III dated January 14, 2020, with annexed Exhibits A-D.