Opinion
1493 CA 16–02018
12-22-2017
David F. TUSZYNSKI, Claimant–Appellant, v. The STATE of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 125827.)
DAVID F. TUSZYNSKI, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
DAVID F. TUSZYNSKI, CLAIMANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:Claimant, a pro se inmate, appeals from an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss the claim. We affirm. Inasmuch as claimant served the claim by regular mail, the Court of Claims was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and thus properly dismissed the claim (see Zoeckler v. State of New York, 109 A.D.3d 1133, 1133, 971 N.Y.S.2d 760 [4th Dept. 2013] ; see generally Court of Claims Act § 11[a] ). Contrary to claimant's contention, there is no evidence in the record of " ‘misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of facility officials' that would warrant an estoppel" (Butler v. State of New York, 126 A.D.3d 1247, 1247 [3d Dept. 2015] ; cf. Wattley v. State of New York, 146 Misc.2d 968, 969–970, 553 N.Y.S.2d 954 [Ct. Cl. 1990] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.