From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 9, 2015
# 2015-038-502 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 9, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-038-502 Claim No. 120879 Motion No. M-85645

01-09-2015

DeANDRE WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

DeANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) granted. Claim served upon AG by certified mail, but no return receipt was requested.

Case information

UID:

2015-038-502

Claimant(s):

DeANDRE WILLIAMS

Claimant short name:

WILLIAMS

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

120879

Motion number(s):

M-85645

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

W. BROOKS DeBOW

Claimant's attorney:

DeANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se

Defendant's attorney:

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Paul F. Cagino, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

January 9, 2015

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a state correctional facility, filed this claim on February 2, 2012, seeking compensation for a "book package" that was allegedly lost by defendant in September 2010. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that the claim was not properly served, asserting that although claimant mailed the claim to the Attorney General by certified mail, he did not request a return receipt. In an unsworn submission in response to defendant's motion, claimant generally denies defendant's allegations, and argues that he "complied with the Rules & Regulations concerning such claim & showed how the defendants were responsible" for the loss of his property (Correspondence of DeAndre Williams, dated Sept. 10, 2014).

Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), requires that a claim be served upon the Attorney General, and that if such service is effected by mail, it must be served by certified mail, return receipt requested (CMRRR). The service requirements of the Court of Claims Act must be strictly construed (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 722-723 [1989]), and the failure to effect service by CMRRR is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim (see Turley v State of New York, 279 AD2d 819 [3d Dept 2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 708 [2001]; Philippe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827 [3d Dept 1998]).

In support of its motion, defendant submits a copy of the envelope in which the claim was mailed (see Cagino Affirmation, ¶ 5). The front of the envelope indicates that postage was paid in the amount of $6.05 and it bears a sticker for certified mail item number 1490 0001 0386 5153. The copy of the back of the envelope, however, does not bear the green strips that generally remain affixed to an envelope after a return receipt is signed and removed. In further support of the motion, defendant submits the affidavit of Cheryl LeBlanc, a United States Postal Service (USPS) Window Clerk, who inspected and weighed the envelope and its contents. She attests that postage paid in the amount of $6.05 would have covered the fees for postage and certified mail, but not the fee for a return receipt (see Cagino Affirmation, Exhibit C), and that the "item was mailed by Certified Mail only and a Return-Receipt was not requested" (LeBlanc Affidavit, ¶ 7). Thus, defendant has demonstrated that claimant's manner of service of the claim upon the Attorney General did not comply with the CMRRR requirement of section 11 (a) (i) of the Court of Claims Act, and that claimant's failure to strictly comply with the service requirements renders the claim jurisdictionally defective (see Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943, 943-944 [3d Dept 2014]).

As noted above, claimant's reply to defendant's motion does not address the specific issue of whether a return receipt was requested. The affidavit of service of the claim and its exhibits that was filed along with the claim is silent as to the method utilized to mail the claim, other than that it was deposited by claimant in the institutional mailbox at Upstate Correctional Facility to be mailed by the USPS (see Affidavit of Service, sworn to January 6, 2012). This does not refute defendant's proof that the claim was not service by CMRRR, and thus, the motion to dismiss must be granted. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that motion number M-85645 is GRANTED and claim number 120879 is DISMISSED.

January 9, 2015

Albany, New York

W. BROOKS DeBOW

Judge of the Court of Claims

Papers considered:

(1) Claim, filed February 2, 2012;

(2) Affidavit of Service of Claim and Exhibits, sworn to January 6, 2012;

(3) Verified Answer, filed March 13, 2012;

(4) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated September 9, 2014;

(5) Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, in Support of Motion to Dismiss, dated September 9, 2014, with Exhibits A-C, including Affidavit of Cheryl LeBlanc, sworn to September 3, 2014, with Exhibit 1;

(6) Correspondence of DeAndre Williams, dated September 10, 2014.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 9, 2015
# 2015-038-502 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:DeANDRE WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 9, 2015

Citations

# 2015-038-502 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 9, 2015)