The following papers numbered 1-4 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for leave to amend the claim and defendants' cross-motion to dismiss:

The claim arises out of an accident that allegedly occurred on January 20, 2020 at approximately 8:00 a.m. when claimant was allegedly caused to slip and fall due to snow and ice. A Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served upon defendants on March 2, 2020 (Doc. 2, ¶ [*2]1).^[FN1] The Notice of Intention to File a Claim states that the accident occurred at the premises known as the "Ramapo Travel Plaza on I-87, Mile 33 Southbound, Sloatsburg, County of Rockland, State of New York, and while [claimant was] traversing the parking lot" (Doc. 2, ¶ 3). A claim was subsequently served and filed on May 14, 2021, which contains the same description of the accident location as specified in the Notice of Intention to File a Claim, except that the claim adds the following italicized language, "specifically in the parking lot thereon" and states "(annexed hereto as Exhibit '2' is a Google Maps image of the aforesaid premises)" (Doc. 1, ¶ 5 [b]).

A Verified Answer was served on June 28, 2021 and filed with the Court on June 30, 2021 (Doc. 8). The Verified Answer raises numerous affirmative defenses pertinent to the motion and cross-motion before the Court, which are set forth as follows. Defendants' fifth affirmative defense asserts that the claim fails to state a cause of action (id. at ¶ 11). Defendants' sixth affirmative defense asserts that the State does not own, operate or maintain the situs of the accident alleged in the claim (id. at 12). Defendants' seventh affirmative defense asserts that the claim fails to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11 by failing to include an adequate description of the location of the incident alleged in the claim and, contrary to allegations contained in the claim, the photograph annexed thereto as Exhibit 2 does not show the Ramapo Travel Plaza, and, therefore, there is no proper claim over which the Court has jurisdiction (id. at 13). Defendants' eighth affirmative defense asserts that the Notice of Intention to File a Claim is insufficient to extend the time for filing and serving the claim in that it fails to comply with § 11 of the Court of Claims Act by failing to include an adequate description of the location of the incident alleged in the claim, and therefore there is no proper claim over which the Court has jurisdiction (id. at 14). Defendants' ninth affirmative defense asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as the claim is untimely in that neither a proper claim nor a proper Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served upon the Attorney General's Office or the New York State Thruway Authority within 90 days of accrual of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3), 11 (a) (i), and 11(a) (ii) (id. at 15).

On August 11, 2022, claimant was deposed and testified that the accident occurred in the Sunoco gas station parking lot of the travel plaza on the northbound side of I-87, Mile 33, known as the Sloatsburg Travel Plaza (Doc. 23, pp 30-35, 4l-45) . Claimant was shown the Google maps image attached to the claim and he identified it as the location of his fall (id. at 3l-39, 43-46). Claimant further testified that a New York State Trooper witnessed the accident (id. at 58-59).

Claimant brings this application pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to serve an amended claim to change the location of the accident as set forth in the claim. Specifically, the amendment seeks to change the description set forth in the claim as the "Ramapo Travel Plaza on I-87, Mile 33 Southbound specifically in the parking lot thereon" to the "Sloatsburg Travel Plaza on I-87, Mile 33 Northbound, County of Rockland, State of New York, specifically in the Sunoco gas station parking lot thereon" (Doc. 24, ¶ 5 [b]). Claimant argues that the Google maps photo attached to the claim depicts the accident location and that a New York State [*3]Trooper allegedly witnessed the accident; therefore there would be no resulting prejudice to defendants if the Court were to grant claimant's motion permitting the proposed amendment to the claim.

Defendants oppose claimant's motion to amend the claim. Defendants also cross-move to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) and Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 on the grounds that the Notice of Intention to File a Claim does not correctly state the place where such claim arose as required by Court of Claims Act §11 (b) and thus the Notice of Intention to File a Claim did not extend claimant's time to serve and file a claim. Additionally, defendants argue that the claim is jurisdictionally defective because it also fails to correctly state the place where such claim arose as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Accordingly, defendants argue that claimant's motion to amend the claim must be denied because the claim is jurisdictionally defective and cannot be cured by amendment. Additionally, defendants argue that the Google maps image attached to the claim is inconsistent with the location alleged in the claim and arguably provides a second location and does not correct the alleged incorrect location set forth in the claim. Defendants further argue that the Notice of Intention to File a Claim and the claim fail to allege with sufficient specificity where in the parking lot the fall occurred.

Claimant opposes defendants' cross-motion and argues that the claim sufficiently complies with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) and that therefore the proposed amendment is proper and should be granted.

It is well established that the State's waiver of its sovereign immunity is conditioned upon claimant's satisfaction of all of the legislatively mandated pleading requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) which provides that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained" (see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007] ["nothing less than strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary"]). Further, the Second Department recently noted that the Court of Appeals "has never adopted" a " 'substantial compliance' " standard sufficient to permit a court to exercise jurisdiction over a claim where the Notice of Intention to File a Claim or the claim fails to comply with the jurisdictional pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) as to the time when and the place where such claim arose (Sacher v State of New York, 211 AD3d 867, 874-875 870 [2d Dept 2022]). Additionally, "[t]he Court of Claims Act does not require the State to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 208 [2003]).

The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are also jurisdictional in nature and require strict compliance as a precondition of suit against the State (see Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). A failure to comply with any of the service provisions is a jurisdictional defect compelling the dismissal of the claim (see Kolnacki, 8 NY3d at 281 ["(t)he failure to satisfy any of the (statutory) conditions is a jurisdictional defect"]; Welch v State of New York, 286 AD2d 496, 497-498 [2d Dept 2001]). Both service and filing of the claim must occur within the statutory time period mandated by the Court of Claims Act (see Dreger, 81 NY2d at 724).

In this matter, the Court finds that, while the Notice of Intention to File a Claim was [*4]timely served, it fails to satisfy the legislatively mandated pleading requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) as to the "place where such claim arose" (see Criscuola v State of New York, 188 AD3d 645, 646 [2d Dept 2020] [The Notice of Intention to File a Claim "failed to describe the location of the alleged accident with sufficient specificity to satisfy the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) as the generalized description did not give notice as to where on the path the accident occurred"]). Specifically, the Notice of Intention to File a Claim describes the accident location as "Ramapo Travel Plaza on I-87, Mile 33 Southbound, Sloatsburg, County of Rockland, State of New York, and while [claimant was] traversing the parking lot" (Doc. 2, ¶ 3). By contrast, claimant now alleges that the accident occurred at the "Sloatsburg Travel Plaza on I-87, Mile 33 Northbound, County of Rockland, State of New York, specifically in the Sunoco gas station parking lot thereon" (Doc. 24, ¶ 5 [b]). Accordingly, the Court finds that claimant's Notice of Intention to File a Claim is jurisdictionally defective and therefore did not serve to extend claimant's time to serve and file a claim beyond the 90-day statutory time period (see Criscuola, 188 AD3d at 646 ["As the notice of intention was deficient (as to the place where the claim arose), it did not serve to extend claimant's time to serve and file a claim beyond the 90-day statutory time period"]).

Therefore, the claim, which was served and filed more than a year after the accrual of the claim, is untimely and the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and the claim warrants dismissal (Court of Claims Act §§ 10 (3), 11 (a) (i), (b); see Hargrove v State of New York, 138 AD3d 777 [2d Dept 2016] [The notice of intention failed to specify the time when and the place where the claim arose and thus was jurisdictionally defective and did not extend claimant's time to serve and file a claim; claim was dismissed as untimely]). Additionally, the Court finds that the claim is jurisdictionally defective because it fails to satisfy the legislatively mandated pleading requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) as to the "place where such claim arose" (see Criscuola, 188 AD3d at 646).

Further, the Court notes that neither a jurisdictionally defective Notice of Intention to File a Claim nor a jurisdictionally defective claim can be cured by amendment (see Sacher, 211 AD3d at 870 ["Such a defect in a claim, or in a notice of intention to file a claim, 'may not be cured by amendment' "]). Therefore, the Court rejects claimant's argument, that there would be no resulting prejudice to defendants if the Court were to grant claimant's motion permitting the proposed amendment to the claim, as immaterial and without legal support (id. at 876 [The failure to satisfy any of the conditions of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is a jurisdictional defect which may not be cured by amendment and a " '(l)ack of prejudice to the (defendant) is immaterial and a court is without power to dispense with applicable jurisdictional requirements of law based upon its own concepts of justice' " (emphasis in original)]).

Accordingly, claimant's motion for leave to amend the claim is DENIED and defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claim is GRANTED.