Opinion
# 2015-016-033 Claim No. 125748 Motion No. M-86507
07-02-2015
RONALD CLARK v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ronald Clark, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Roberto Barbosa, AAG
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2015-016-033 |
| Claimant(s): | RONALD CLARK |
| Claimant short name: | CLARK |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125748 |
| Motion number(s): | M-86507 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | Alan C. Marin |
| Claimant's attorney: | Ronald Clark, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General Roberto Barbosa, AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | July 2, 2015 |
| City: | New York |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The defendant has moved to dismiss the suit of Ronald Clark on the ground that the pleadings were served by regular mail; for his part, Mr. Clark did not submit papers in opposition thereto. According to Clark, his suit arose on December 30, 2014 when he was unable to perform his prayers due to an 8-hour shut off of water and electricity at the Sullivan Correctional Facility.
His suit was initiated with both a notice of intention to file a claim and a claim, which are exhibits A and B to defendant's Affirmation. Defendant represents that the two pleadings were mailed together in the same envelope addressed to the Attorney General at his Albany address, and attaches a copy of the front of the envelope (contained in exhibit B). Each pleading was stamped "Received" by the Claims Bureau of the Attorney General with the same date - - March 4, 2015.
It is undisputed that the pleadings were sent by regular mail, rather than certified mail, return receipt requested, as is specified in the Court of Claims Act (the "Act"). The Court of Appeals has stated that "Because suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed . . ." (Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). In Dreger, the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of two suits in the Court of Claims because the method of service was regular mail.
Ronald Clark's claim was not properly served upon the Attorney General; accordingly, and having reviewed what was submitted, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion No. M-86507 is granted, and claim No.125748 is dismissed. Mr. Clark may wish to avail himself of section 10.6 of the Act, which provides for application to the Court for permission to file a late claim.
The following were reviewed: from defendant, a Notice of Motion and an Affirmation (with exhibits A and B). As noted, no papers in opposition were submitted by claimant.
July 2, 2015
New York, New York
Alan C. Marin
Judge of the Court of Claims