Hogan v. State, 504153.
| Decision Date | 05 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | 504153. |
| Citation | 872 N.Y.S.2d 250,59 A.D.3d 754,2009 NY Slip Op 00603 |
| Parties | JOHN HOGAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), entered September 21, 2007, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim.
Peters, J.P.
Claimant, a prison inmate, filed this claim in March 2007 alleging that correction officers negligently broke his radio by opening it during a facility-wide frisk. Defendant answered and raised various affirmative defenses asserting, among other things, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because claimant failed to state the total sum claimed as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Claimant moved to strike defendant's affirmative defenses and defendant cross-moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Claims denied claimant's motion and granted defendant's cross motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damages for personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sum claimed." Here, claimant concedes that he failed to set forth the total sum claimed and, as this Court previously has held, the failure to strictly comply with the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "is a jurisdictional defect warranting dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" (Signature Health Ctr., LLC v State of New York, 42 AD3d 678, 679 [2007]; see Jones v State of New York, 56 AD3d 906 [2008]). To the extent that claimant contends that he remedied this defect through a subsequent "addendum," we need note only that a jurisdictionally defective claim cannot be cured through an amendment (see Manshul Constr. Corp. v State Ins. Fund, 118 AD2d 983, 985 [1986]). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gang v. State
...of intent or claim "may not be cured by amendment" ( DeMairo , 172 A.D.3d at 857, 100 N.Y.S.3d 362 ; see Hogan v. State of New York , 59 A.D.3d 754, 755, 872 N.Y.S.2d 250 [3d Dept. 2009] ). The overriding purpose of sections 10 and 11 is to enable "the State to conduct a prompt investigatio......
-
Clark v. State
...[2007] ; Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201, 206–207, 770 N.Y.S.2d 696, 802 N.E.2d 1094 [2003] ; Hogan v. State of New York, 59 A.D.3d 754, 754–755, 872 N.Y.S.2d 250 [2009] ). We agree with the Court of Claims that the claim, consisting of 88 prolix paragraphs, raises vague, concl......
-
Flemming v. State
...and the total sum claimed” (Morra v. State of New York, 107 A.D.3d 1115, 1115, 967 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2013]; see Hogan v. State of New York, 59 A.D.3d 754, 754, 872 N.Y.S.2d 250 [2009] ). We agree with the Court of Claims that claimant's general allegations related to a conspiracy, and the failu......
-
Matter of Peterec-Tolino v. Commercial Electrical Contractors, Inc.
... ... WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent ... Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department ... Decided February 5, 2009 ... Appeal from a ... ...