Opinion
# 2014-038-515 Claim No. 123254 Motion No. M-84260 Cross-Motion No. CM-84464
04-21-2014
SCOTT YOUNG v. STATE OF NEW YORK AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
SCOTT YOUNG, 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 inmate's bailment claim granted. Claim was served by Priority Mail, and more than 120 days after exhaustion of administrative remedies. Timely and proper service of Notice of Intention does not extend time to serve an inmate bailment claim. Claimant's cross motion for late claim relief denied because Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) does not apply to bailment claims brought pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).
Case information
| UID: | 2014-038-515 |
| Claimant(s): | SCOTT YOUNG |
| Claimant short name: | YOUNG |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 123254 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84260 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-84464 |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | SCOTT YOUNG, 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: | |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS), has filed this claim sounding in negligent bailment and seeking compensation for legal transcripts and personal photographs that were allegedly lost concomitant to claimant's transfer from Upstate Correctional Facility (CF) to Clinton CF on February 1, 2013. Defendant moves to dismiss the claim on jurisdictional grounds.
The parties do not dispute that claimant's administrative remedies with respect to this bailment claim were exhausted on June 17, 2013 (see Verified Claim, ¶¶ 13, 23, Exhibit 21; Cagino Affirmation, ¶ 8). Nor do they dispute that claimant served a Notice of Intention to File this claim by mailing it to the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested (CMRRR) on or about April 10, 2013 (see Verified Claim, ¶ 22, Exhibit 5; Cagino Affirmation, ¶ 16), or that the instant claim was timely filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims (see Verified Claim, filed Sept. 23, 2013; Cagino Reply Affirmation, ¶ 12). The claim was mailed to the Attorney General by Priority Mail with a post date of October 22, 2013, and it was received by the Office of the Attorney General on October 23, 2013 (see Cagino Affirmation, Exhibit A). In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant asserts that the claim was neither timely nor properly served, both of which are jurisdictional defenses that were asserted with particularity (see Verified Answer, Third and Fourth Defenses). Claimant opposes the motion, and cross-moves late claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion to dismiss the claim will be granted and claimant's cross motion for late claim relief will be denied.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that a claim be filed with the Court of Claims and served upon the Attorney General by CMRRR. An inmate's claim for loss or damage to property must be filed and served within one hundred twenty (120) days after the available administrative remedies have been exhausted (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). It is well established that the filing and 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 that the failure to comply with those requirements is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the claim (see id.; Ivy v State of New York, 27 AD3d 1190 [4th Dept 2006]; Suarez v State of New York, 193 AD2d 1037 [3d Dept 1993];see also Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943 [3d Dept 2014]). Service upon the Attorney General is not complete "until the claim . . . is received in the office of the attorney general" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [a] [i]).
As noted above, it is undisputed that claimant's administrative remedies were exhausted on June 17, 2013, and that the 120-day period within which to file and serve this claim expired on October 15, 2013. The claim was not received by the Attorney General until October 23, 2013, and thus it was not timely served. To the extent that claimant argues that late service of the claim was due to authorities at the correctional facility withholding his outgoing mail (see Claimant's Motion Submission, ¶ Third), late mailing from an inmate cannot be excused upon an allegation that it was the fault of defendant where, as here, "claimant has failed to demonstrate that the mailroom delay arose out of any omissions or malfeasance on the part of the facility's mailroom personnel" (Rivera v State of New York, 5 AD3d 881, 881 [3d Dept 2004]). Notwithstanding claimant's submission of a copy of a DOCCS disbursement request for CMRRR dated October 9, 2013 (see Claimant's Motion Submission, Exhibit A), and claimant's contention that defendant's agents maliciously withheld his documents, he has not made any showing in support of that contention. Nor is a prison mailbox rule such as stated in Houston v Lack (487 US 266, 270 [1988]) applicable to the mailing of claims to the Clerk of the New York State Court of Claims (see Philipe v State of New York, 248 AD2d 827 [3d Dept 1998]; Espinal v State of New York, 159 Misc 2d 1051 [Ct Cl 1993]). Further, the claim was mailed by Priority Mail, not CMRRR, and thus, it was not served in the manner required by (Court of Claims Act § 11 [a] [i]). Claimant's contention that he timely and properly served a notice of intention to file this claim does not cure the jurisdictional defect of untimeliness because service of a notice of intention is not authorized to extend the time to file and serve property claims pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9) (see Bush v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1244, 1245 [3d Dept 2009]; McTier v State of New York, UID No. 2008-030-511 [Ct Cl, Scuccimarra, J., Mar. 6, 2008]). Accordingly, and due to either the defect of late service or improper manner of service, the claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth.; Suarez v State of New York; Miranda v State of New York).
Claimant's cross motion for late claim relief pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) cannot be granted because such relief is not available for an inmate bailment claim (see Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2004]; White v State of New York, UID No. 2013-041-069 [Ct Cl, Milano, J., Nov. 25, 2013]). Similarly, the provision that permits the Court to treat a timely notice of intention as claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [8] [a]) is not applicable to inmate property claims (see Pristell v State of New York, 40 AD3d 1198, 1199 [3d Dept 2007]). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that defendant's motion number M-84260 is GRANTED, and claim number 123254 is DISMISSED, and it is further
ORDERED, that claimant's cross motion number CM-84464 is DENIED.
April 21, 2014
Albany, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers considered:
(1) Verified Claim, with Exhibits 1 through 24, filed September 23, 2013;
(2) Verified Answer, filed November 1, 2013;
(3) Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated November 4, 2013;
(4) Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claim, dated November 4, 2013, with Exhibits A-B;
(5) Claimant's Response to Verified Answer, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to File Late Claim, with Exhibits A-B (calendared as Cross Motion CM-84464), sworn to December 13, 2013;
(6) Affirmation of Paul F. Cagino, AAG, in Opposition to Movant's Cross-Motion to File Late Claim, dated January 30, 2014, with Exhibits.