| Rodriguez v State of New York |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 50885(U) |
| Decided on May 16, 2024 |
| Court Of Claims |
| Mejias-Glover, J. |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Defendant, the State of New York (hereinafter, the "Defendant"), moves by Notice of Motion dated and filed with the Court on September 14, 2023, seeking an order dismissing the Claim, pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(2) and (8).
By letter dated December 6, 2023, this Court advised the parties of the briefing schedule for the submission of papers regarding the instant motion. Pursuant to the letter, Claimant was directed to submit opposition papers by January 15, 2024. To date, Claimant has neither submitted opposition papers nor has he requested an extension of time to submit opposition. Accordingly, the motion was submitted for decision without opposition.
Now, having carefully reviewed the papers and exhibits filed, Defendant's motion is granted for the reasons more specifically set forth hereinbelow.
On February 27, 2023, the Office of the Attorney General received a Claim sent by a [*2]first-class mail, alleging that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") failed to provide Claimant with medical treatment following an altercation with another incarcerated individual at Auburn Correctional Facility on January 1, 2023. Defendant, thereafter, filed this motion to dismiss in lieu of filing an answer.
Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) provides that a copy of the claim shall be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested. The service requirements set forth in the Court of Claims Act are jurisdictional in nature and therefore must be strictly construed (see Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721 [1989]). The law is settled that "[a]nything less than strict compliance with New York's statutory requirements will result in the court dismissing [the] claim" (see Kolnacki v. State of NY, 8 NY3d 277 [2007], citing Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 276 [2006] [dismissing claimant's action for failure to comply with verification requirements of Court of Claims Act § 8-b(4)]).
Here, Claimant sent the Claim by regular first-class mail, which does not comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i). The Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction over the Claim.
Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth hereinabove, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Defendant's motion (M-99929) is GRANTED, and Claim No. 138866 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated: May 16, 20241. Notice of Motion dated September 14, 2023, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits.