Martinez v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 2001
• Citation: 722 N.Y.S.2d 907
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Maximo Martinez, appellant, v State of New York, respondent. 2000-01547 : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 907

722 N.Y.S.2d 907 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Maximo Martinez, appellant, v State of New York, respondent.

2000-01547

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

April 16, 2001

Matthew A. Kaufman, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and Julie S. Mereson of counsel), for respondent.

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Mann, J.), dated December 16, 1999, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the claim.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 are jurisdictional and must be strictly construed, and failure to comply with the service requirements therein results in a lack of jurisdiction (see, Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 721; Pagano v New York State Thruway Auth., 235 A.D.2d 408). Here, the claimant's service of his notice of intention to file a claim by express mail was improper, as that is not one of the authorized methods of service under Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) (see, Turley v State of New York, ___ A.D.2d ___ [3rd Dept., Jan. 18, 2001]; Negron v State of New York, 257 A.D.2d 652; Hodge v State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 766). Thus, no jurisdiction was acquired, and the claim was properly dismissed (see, Court of Claims Act § 10[3]; Scott v State of New York, 204 A.D.2d 424).

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, GOLDSTEIN and SMITH, JJ., concur.