Opinion
09-29-2016
Anthony TRIMBLE Sr. et al., Appellants, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
Anthony Trimble Sr., Napanoch, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony Trimble Sr., Napanoch, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, LYNCH, ROSE and CLARK, JJ.
PETERS, P.J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Ferreira, J.), entered June 11, 2014, which sua sponte dismissed the claim.
Claimants, proceeding pro se, filed a claim attempting to commence an action against defendant. The Court of Claims, on its own motion, directed claimants to show cause why the claim should not be dismissed for failure to serve it on the Attorney General in accordance with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(a). In response, claimants asserted that they had served three “notices of intent” on the Attorney General at an address in Mineola, New York, but provided certified mailing return receipts indicating that such mailings were sent to the Nassau County Attorney at that address. As a result, the Court of Claims found that claimants failed to comply with the service requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(a) and dismissed the claim. Claimants now appeal.
We affirm. Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) requires that a claim be served on the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Miranda v. State of New York, 113 A.D.3d 943, 943, 978 N.Y.S.2d 463 [2014] ). This requirement is jurisdictional in nature and the failure to comply with it mandates dismissal of the claim (see Encarnacion v. State of New York, 133 A.D.3d 1049, 1050, 19 N.Y.S.3d 199 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 919, 26 N.Y.S.3d 764, 47 N.E.3d 94 [2016] ; Miranda v. State of New York, 113 A.D.3d at 943–944, 978 N.Y.S.2d 463 ; Maude V. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 82 A.D.3d 1468, 1469, 918 N.Y.S.2d 757 [2011] ). Here, it is undisputed that claimants failed to comply with the statute as they served the claim on the Nassau County Attorney, not the Attorney General. Notwithstanding their assertion that this was an innocent mistake, the claim was properly dismissed due to this jurisdictional defect.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
McCARTHY, LYNCH, ROSE and CLARK, JJ., concur.