WALTER RIVERA
Synopsis
Defendant not served with the claim. Claim dismissed on the Court's Order to Show Cause.
Case information
| UID: |
2021-054-002 |
| Claimant(s): |
TERESITA G. KAMIEL |
| Claimant short name: |
KAMIEL |
| Footnote (claimant name) : |
|
| Defendant(s): |
THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : |
|
| Third-party claimant(s): |
|
| Third-party defendant(s): |
|
| Claim number(s): |
130217 |
| Motion number(s): |
M-96032 |
| Cross-motion number(s): |
|
| Judge: |
WALTER RIVERA |
| Claimant's attorney: |
TERESITA G. KAMIEL Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: |
HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York By: Dorothy M. Keogh, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: |
|
| Signature date: |
February 1, 2021 |
| City: |
White Plains |
| Comments: |
|
| Official citation: |
|
| Appellate results: |
|
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
|
Decision
The following papers numbered 1-3 were read and considered by the Court on the Court's Order to Show Cause as to why the claim should not be dismissed (Claim No. 130217):
Order to Show Cause.................................................................................................1
Letter of Assistant Attorney General Dorothy M. Keogh Dated December 9, 2020, Affidavit of Yihan Hsueh Sworn to on December 9, 2020.......................................2
Claimant's Response and Exhibits Filed with the Court on November 9, 2020......3
The claim was filed with the Court on September 5, 2017. The State did not file an answer. By Order to Show Cause, the Court directed the parties to submit papers regarding the service of the claim upon the State.
The State submitted an affidavit sworn to on December 9, 2020 by Yihan Hsueh, a Law Department Document Specialist. Hsueh affirmed that a thorough search of the State's computer filing system and physical files failed to locate any record of receipt of a copy of the claim (Hsueh Affidavit). In response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, claimant submitted a copy of her claim with attachments. Claimant, however, does not submit any proof of service upon the State.
The service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 are 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 v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007] ["(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). The Court finds that the State has established that a copy of the claim was not served upon the State. Thus, the Court is without jurisdiction over the claim.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIM IS DISMISSED.
February 1, 2021
White Plains, New York
WALTER RIVERA
Judge of the Court of Claims