The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and Does Not Extend Time to File

Introduction

Lunati v. State of New York (2025 NY Slip Op 04562) is a Second Department decision that crystallizes, in a single opinion, the strict consequences that flow from failing to plead the “place where [the claim] arose” with adequate specificity under Court of Claims Act §11(b). The case arises from a bicycling accident in Heckscher State Park in which the claimant alleged injuries after striking a pothole. Although the claimant timely served a notice of intention and later filed a claim, both documents described the accident location only as “at or about the parking lot adjacent to Field 7 at Heckscher State Park.”

The procedural history is substantial: after filing the claim, the claimant sought to amend; later moved to have the notice of intention treated as a claim; also sought leave to file a late claim; while the State cross-moved to dismiss. The Court of Claims denied all claimant relief and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Second Department dismissed the appeal from the denial of reargument, and otherwise affirmed across the board.

Key issues:

Whether the description of the accident location satisfied Court of Claims Act §11(b).
Whether a jurisdictional defect under §11(b) can be cured by amendment (CPLR 3025[b]).
Whether a deficient notice of intention may be treated as a claim under §10(8).
Whether a deficient notice of intention extends the time to file a claim under §10(3).
Whether the claimant met the standards for leave to file a late claim under §10(6).
Whether an appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division held:

The claimant’s description of the accident site—“at or about the parking lot adjacent to Field 7 at Heckscher State Park”—did not satisfy §11(b)’s place requirement. The claim was therefore jurisdictionally defective.
A jurisdictional §11(b) defect cannot be cured by amendment; the denial of leave to amend was proper.
Because the notice of intention contained the same defect, it could not be treated as a claim under §10(8).
The defective notice of intention did not extend the time to file a claim under §10(3); thus, the claim filed in March 2021 was untimely, and dismissal under CPLR 3211(a) was proper.
The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to file a late claim under §10(6), given the lack of a reasonable excuse, the State’s lack of notice and opportunity to investigate, and the failure to demonstrate potential merit.
No appeal lies from an order denying reargument; that portion of the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The court’s opinion is anchored in a robust line of authority emphasizing the State’s strictly limited waiver of sovereign immunity and the jurisdictional nature of §11(b)’s pleading requirements. The following authorities guided the outcome:

Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 and Sardegna v State of New York, 218 AD3d 700: The court quotes Lepkowski (via Sardegna) for the five essential §11(b) elements: nature, time, place, items of damage/injury, and total sum claimed. Lepkowski is the touchstone for strict compliance with §11(b) as a condition of the State’s waiver of immunity.
Sinski v State of New York, 265 AD2d 319; Criscuola v State of New York, 188 AD3d 645; Williams v State of New York, 224 AD3d 790: These decisions explain that §11(b) exists to give the State sufficient particulars to promptly investigate and assess liability, and that the State is not required to “ferret out” facts the statute obligates claimants to allege.
Vallarta v State of New York, 211 AD3d 884; Constable v State of New York, 172 AD3d 681; Kimball Brooklands Corp. v State of New York, 180 AD3d 1031; Laignelet v State of New York, 205 AD3d 795: These cases underscore that imprecision in the “place” element renders a claim jurisdictionally defective and compels dismissal; the State is not obliged to scour a broad area or reconstruct a location that the claimant fails to pinpoint.
Musumeci v State of New York, 220 AD3d 877: A jurisdictionally defective claim cannot be cured by amendment. This limitation drove the affirmance of the denial of leave to amend under CPLR 3025(b).
Sharief v State of New York, 164 AD3d 851: A notice of intention that fails §11(b) cannot be treated as a claim under §10(8).
Criscuola and Hargrove v State of New York, 138 AD3d 777: A defective notice of intention does not extend the time to serve and file a claim under §10(3), and noncompliance deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction.
Shah v State of New York, 178 AD3d 871; Tucholski v State of New York, 122 AD3d 612; Hyatt v State of New York, 180 AD3d 764; Casey v State of New York, 161 AD3d 720; Dominguez v State of New York, 218 AD3d 440; Winter v State of New York, 187 AD3d 825; Hersh v State of New York, 230 AD3d 1304: These authorities articulate and apply the §10(6) late-claim factors—no single factor controls—and emphasize the need to show a reasonable excuse, State notice and opportunity to investigate, lack of prejudice, and at least the appearance of merit. The claimant fell short on key factors.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds in four integrated steps, each anchored in the text and purpose of the Court of Claims Act:

Insufficient “place” pleading is jurisdictional under §11(b). The description “at or about the parking lot adjacent to Field 7 at Heckscher State Park” was held insufficient to enable the State to promptly locate the condition and investigate. In a large public park, a vague description—exacerbated by the phrase “at or about”—does not satisfy §11(b). Because compliance with §11(b) is a condition of the State’s waiver of immunity, noncompliance creates a jurisdictional defect.
Jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by amendment (CPLR 3025[b]). Although CPLR 3025(b) directs that leave to amend “shall be freely given,” that liberal standard cannot transform a nullity into a valid pleading in a court of limited jurisdiction. As Musumeci makes clear, the defect goes to subject matter jurisdiction and is not curable by amendment.
A deficient notice of intention cannot be treated as a claim and does not extend time. Because the notice of intention mirrored the same location defect, it was legally insufficient and could not be “treated as a claim” under §10(8). For the same reason, it did not extend the time to file a claim under §10(3). As a result, the subsequently filed claim was untimely, and dismissal under CPLR 3211(a) was mandatory for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Late-claim relief was properly denied under §10(6). The claimant did not establish a reasonable excuse for delay; the State lacked adequate notice of the essential facts and an opportunity to investigate (a direct consequence of the vague location); and the claimant did not adequately show potential merit. Given that no one factor controls but several weighty factors were adverse, the Court of Claims acted within its discretion in denying late-claim relief.

Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

The decision is significant not because it departs from precedent, but because it consolidates three powerful, interrelated consequences of a §11(b) “place” defect into a single, unequivocal holding:

If the location allegation is insufficient under §11(b), the claim is jurisdictionally defective.
That jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment (CPLR 3025[b]).
A defective notice of intention cannot be treated as a claim (§10[8]) and does not extend the filing period (§10[3]).

Practically, this “Heckscher Specificity Rule” raises the drafting bar in cases involving injuries on expansive State properties—parks, campuses, highways, and large facilities. Counsel must expect that general locational descriptors (e.g., “at or about,” “near,” “adjacent to”) will be deemed insufficient unless buttressed by precise, verifiable details that enable immediate identification of the site.

The decision will likely:

Increase early motion practice challenging §11(b) compliance, especially on the “place” element.
Heighten diligence demands at the notice-of-intention stage, given that a defective notice will not toll the filing period and cannot later be retrofitted into a claim.
Influence late-claim applications, where a vague location undermines key factors—State notice, opportunity to investigate, and appearance of merit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Court of Claims Act §11(b): Requires a claim to state, with sufficient particularity, the nature of the claim, the time when it arose, the place where it arose, the items of damage or injuries, and the total sum claimed. The purpose is to let the State promptly locate the event/condition and assess liability.
Jurisdictional Defect: A flaw so fundamental that the court lacks the legal power to adjudicate the claim. Because the State’s consent to be sued is conditional, strict compliance with §11(b) is jurisdictional; noncompliance cannot be waived or fixed by amendment.
Notice of Intention (§10): A preliminary notice that, if valid and timely, can extend the time to file a full claim. If the notice itself lacks §11(b) particulars, it is defective and does not extend time.
Treat as a Claim (§10[8]): A discretionary remedy allowing a court to deem a notice of intention a claim if, among other things, it was timely and contains facts sufficient to constitute a claim. If the notice of intention fails §11(b), it cannot be treated as a claim.
Late Claim (§10[6]): A discretionary safety valve: courts weigh several factors—excuse, notice, opportunity to investigate, appearance of merit, prejudice, and other remedies. No single factor controls, but lack of notice/opportunity and lack of apparent merit are often fatal.
Leave to Amend (CPLR 3025[b]): Generally “freely given,” but cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in the Court of Claims. A claim that never vested jurisdiction cannot be amended into validity.
Appeal from Denial of Reargument: No appeal lies from an order denying reargument; such orders are nonappealable as of right.

Applied Guidance: Drafting the “Place” with Sufficient Particularity

Lunati underscores that in expansive State properties, the “place” must be pleaded with pinpoint precision so the State can find it without speculation. Consider including:

Exact geographic identifiers: GPS coordinates; street addresses paired with lot numbers; distances and bearings from fixed landmarks.
Fixed markers: light pole numbers, trail markers, field/section identifiers, signpost numbers, mile markers.
Measured distances: “15 feet south of the northwest corner of the Field 7 parking lot, adjacent to lamppost #12.”
Date/time specificity: to aid in cross-referencing maintenance records and surveillance.
Photographs and maps referenced in the pleading: “as shown in Exhibit A, annotated with an ‘X.’”
Eliminate “at or about” unless further confined by precise descriptors.

Procedural Posture and Standards of Review

Denial of leave to amend (CPLR 3025[b]): Reviewed for abuse of discretion, but denial is compelled where amendment cannot cure a jurisdictional defect.
Dismissal under CPLR 3211(a): De novo review of whether the pleading demonstrates compliance with §11(b) and timely filing under §10; failure deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction.
Late-claim motion (§10[6]): Reviewed for provident exercise of discretion; affirmation here rested on multiple adverse factors (excuse, notice/opportunity, merit).
Denial of reargument: Nonappealable; the Appellate Division dismissed that portion of the appeal as a matter of law.

Why the Particular Location Failed Here

The phrase “at or about the parking lot adjacent to Field 7 at Heckscher State Park” fails for two reasons:

It is indeterminate: “at or about” signals an area, not a point. In a large parking area, there may be many potential potholes and features, and conditions can change over time.
It imposes investigative burdens on the State beyond §11(b): the State is not required to “ferret out” or assemble information that the statute requires the claimant to provide. A valid §11(b) “place” allegation must enable a prompt, targeted investigation without guesswork.

Case Outcome Recap

Appeal from denial of reargument dismissed.
Denial of leave to amend affirmed: §11(b) defects are not curable by amendment.
Denial of motion to treat the notice of intention as a claim affirmed: the notice was itself defective.
Granting of the State’s CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss affirmed: claim untimely and jurisdictionally defective.
Denial of leave to file a late claim affirmed: lack of reasonable excuse; inadequate State notice/opportunity; no sufficient showing of potential merit.
One bill of costs awarded to the State.

Broader Legal Significance

Lunati functions as a comprehensive restatement of the rigorous pleading and timing regime that governs the Court of Claims. It is particularly instructive for counsel handling accidents on State properties where precise locational detail is inherently challenging. The opinion makes explicit that claimants cannot rely on the remedial devices of amendment, §10(8) conversion, or §10(3) tolling when the fundamental §11(b) place element is deficient; nor will §10(6) readily rescue a claim where the deficiency has deprived the State of notice and the opportunity to investigate.

Conclusion

Lunati v. State of New York crystallizes a strict trilogy of consequences when a claimant fails to plead the “place” with adequate particularity under Court of Claims Act §11(b): the defect is jurisdictional; it cannot be cured by amendment; and it defeats both §10(8) conversion and the §10(3) extension that would otherwise follow from a notice of intention. The decision also demonstrates how the same defect undermines the §10(6) late-claim factors—especially State notice, opportunity to investigate, and appearance of merit—leading to denial of relief. The case is a clear, practical directive to practitioners: in the Court of Claims, precision about “where” is not a pleading nicety; it is a jurisdictional prerequisite.