Opinion
# 2015-016-078 Claim No. 126640 Motion No. M-87441
12-24-2015
JARRELL WILLIAMS v. CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK
Jarrell Williams, Pro se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2015-016-078 |
| Claimant(s): | JARRELL WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126640 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87441 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jarrell Williams, Pro se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Joseph L. Paterno, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 24, 2015 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The defendant State of New York has moved to dismiss as untimely the claim of Jarrell Williams, which arose from his dispute over a bill for tuition from City College, a senior college of the City University of New York. Mr. Williams submitted no papers in opposition.
Mr. Williams describes his cause of action as follows:
"On November 27, 2013, I was notified by the City College of New York regarding a bill of $1,460.85 for the fall semester of 2012. Following the discharge from classes due to a low GPA and lack of financial aid, I received a grade of B as I was told. After hearing this news, I confronted the bursar office about the situation and contacted Professor Harden who never responded through email. . .
"I heard no word from the college throughout the year of 2014. However, the City College of New York contacted me early this year [2015] between late February and early March regarding the bill. I question the motive of the school as I find it awkward to bill a student for classes dropped and receiving a grade of passing."
Item 4 on the claim form asks for the accrual date; Williams entered August 18, but no year.
The pre-printed claim form closes with: "By reason of the foregoing, Claimant was damaged in the amount of $ _____ . . .", and Williams filled in the same amount from above - - $1,460.85. Item 5 on the form reads, "Identify the items of damage or injuries to have been sustained." Claimant wrote "No items of damage nor injuries have been inflicted," suggesting he misinterpreted the question to be about physical injuries.
The claim was served upon the Attorney General's Office on August 19, 2015 and filed with the Clerk of the Court a week later, August 26. The defendant contends that the cause of action arose on November 27, 2013 and that filing and service were late under section 10 (3) of the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). Section 10 (3) provides that such pleadings be made within 90 days from when the cause of action accrues, unless a notice of intention to file a claim is served on the defendant, which extends the 90-day window to two years.
A notice of intention to file a claim does not have to be filed with the Clerk of the Court (subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 10 of the Act).
Two things to note at this point. Mr. Williams did not serve a notice of intention to file a claim. Secondly, defendant points to subdivision 3 of section 10 of the Act, which relates to personal injury or property loss. Subdivision 4 of that section covers contract claims, and has a statute of limitation period of 6 months, not 90 days. This case is more properly characterized as one of implied contract (Prusack v State of New York, 117 AD2d 729 [2d Dept 1986]; see also Keefe v New York Law School, 71 AD3d 569, 570 [1st Dept 2010]).
Subdivision 4 of section 10 also extends the limitations period to two years for a claimant who serves a notice of intention to file a claim.
The Court will use the six-month statute of limitations period and assume that the cause of action arose from claimant's most recent contact with City College: "between late February and early March" in 2015. If it in fact arose any time in March, the filing and service would be timely; if the cause of action arose in February, such would have had to be on or after February 26. But we do not know, and section 11 (b) of the Act provides that the claim must be specific as to a number of items, including the time of accrual, the nature of the claim and the damages.
The time of accrual is not presented accurately enough to determine whether the claim is compliant with the statute of limitations - - and that is with using claimant's 2015 communication with the college administration as the date of accrual. Moreover, the nature of the claim is unclear - - did Williams receive credit for the course with the grade of B, or did he pay for the course and drop it? Significantly, no showing was made that City College, by its actions, violated any known rule or policy (Prusack, supra).
The Court of Appeals has stated that "Because 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]). The failure to comply with the limitations of time contained in section 10 of the Court of Claims Act "constitutes a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal of the claim (citations omitted)." Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287 (3d Dept 2011). Similarly, a claim is jurisdictionally defective if it lacks the specificity required by section 11 (b) (Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]).
In view of the foregoing, and having reviewed the submissions of the parties, IT IS ORDERED that motion No. M-87441 is granted and claim No. 126640 is dismissed.
The Court reviewed a Notice of Motion and Affirmation in Support (with exhibit A) from the defendant State of New York; claimant Jarrell Williams did not submit any papers in opposition thereto. --------
December 24, 2015
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims