Aguilera v. State (In re Geneva Foundry Litig.)

• Decision Date: 28 June 2019
• Docket Number: 158,CA 18–01674
• Parties: In the MATTER OF GENEVA FOUNDRY LITIGATION. Maira Aguilera, et al., Claimants–Appellants, v. State of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 129067.) Dorothy Williams, Claimant–Appellant, v. State of New York, Defendant–Respondent. (Claim No. 129460.)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

173 A.D.3d 1812
105 N.Y.S.3d 648

In the MATTER OF GENEVA FOUNDRY LITIGATION.

Maira Aguilera, et al., Claimants–Appellants,
v.
State of New York, Defendant–Respondent.

(Claim No. 129067.)

Dorothy Williams, Claimant–Appellant,
v.
State of New York, Defendant–Respondent.

(Claim No. 129460.)

158
CA 18–01674

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: June 28, 2019

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (DAVID M. KATZ OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANTS–APPELLANTS.

BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND NEMOYER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

173 A.D.3d 1813

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimants commenced these actions asserting claims based on theories of, inter alia, negligence and inverse condemnation stemming from defendant's purported concealment of toxic contamination in the vicinity of a now-defunct factory in the City of Geneva. The Court of Claims thereafter granted defendant's motion to dismiss all of the claims, holding, inter alia, that the claims were jurisdictionally defective because they failed to adequately plead when they arose (see generally Court of Claims Act § 11[b] ). Claimants appeal, and we now affirm.

The State of New York is sovereign and has consented to be sued only in strict accordance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act (see Court of Claims Act § 8 ; Kolnacki v. State of New York , 8 N.Y.3d 277, 280, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 [2007], rearg. denied 8 N.Y.3d 994, 838 N.Y.S.2d 835, 870 N.E.2d 153 [2007] ). Among those requirements is the claimant's duty to allege "the time when [the] claim arose" ( § 11[b] ). The requirements of section 11(b) are jurisdictional in nature (see Kolnacki , 8 N.Y.3d at 281, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 ), and the failure to satisfy them mandates dismissal of the claim without regard to whether the State was prejudiced (see Wilson v. State of New York , 61 A.D.3d 1367, 1368, 876 N.Y.S.2d 818 [4th Dept. 2009] ) or had access to the requisite information from its own records (see Lepkowski v. State of New York , 1 N.Y.3d 201, 208, 770 N.Y.S.2d 696, 802 N.E.2d 1094 [2003] ). As the Court of Appeals has explained, the State is not required "to ferret out or assemble information that section 11(b) obligates the claimant to allege"...