Opinion
# 2015-009-011 Claim No. 125015 Motion No. M-85850
05-07-2015
SOPHIA LA FONTAINE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WOODRUFF LEE CARROLL, P.C. BY: Woodruff Lee Carroll, Esq., Of Counsel. HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Bonnie Gail Levy, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel.
Synopsis
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim based upon the failure of the claimant to sufficiently describe the location of the accident or identify any specific acts of negligence committed by the State pursuant to Court of Claims Act 11 (b). It should be noted that the Court dismissed the claim without prejudice, since it also determined that claimant's Notice of Intention satisfied the requirements of 11 (b).
Case information
| UID: | 2015-009-011 |
| Claimant(s): | SOPHIA LA FONTAINE |
| Claimant short name: | FONTAINE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption to reflect the State of New York as the only proper defendant before this Court. |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 125015 |
| Motion number(s): | M-85850 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. |
| Claimant's attorney: | WOODRUFF LEE CARROLL, P.C. BY: Woodruff Lee Carroll, Esq., Of Counsel. |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Bonnie Gail Levy, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 7, 2015 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Defendant has brought this motion seeking an order dismissing the claim.
The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion; Affirmation, with Exhibits 1, 2
Affidavit in Opposition 3
A party initiating an action in the Court of Claims is properly referred to as a "claimant".
Defendant contends that the claim should be dismissed because the Notice of Intention to File a Claim and the Claim fail to set forth the allegations required by Court of Claims Act ?? 11 (b). Defendant also contends that as a result of the alleged deficiencies within the Notice of Intention, it should be treated as a nullity and therefore has failed to extend the time within which claimant had to serve and file a claim. As a result, defendant contends that since the claim was not filed within 90 days of the date of accrual as required by Court of Claims Act ?? 10 (3), it is untimely and must be dismissed.
The Court must therefore examine the contents of claimant's Notice of Intention (Exhibit 1 to Items 1, 2) which defendant acknowledges was personally served upon the Office of the Attorney General on October 4, 2013.
In her Notice of Intention, claimant states that the nature of the claim is "[n]egligent maintenance of premises" at the New York State Fair. Claimant specifically alleges that she "slipped and fell in the food court in the International Building on the stairs on the 8/26/13. The stairs were wet with water, that was negligently left on the stairs. The stairs were in the International Food Pavilion near the polish restaurant. She was going up the stairs with a tray. It was raining and the stairs and floor were wet and slippery. The women with a mop had not cleaned up the wet floors and the floor was slippery."
Court of Claims Act ?? 11 (b) provides that a Notice of Intention to File a Claim shall set forth the time when and the place where the claim arose, as well as the nature of the claim. The failure to state the time and place of the accident in the Notice of Intention is a jurisdictional defect, rendering it a nullity, and therefore ineffective in granting claimant additional time in which to serve and file a claim (Wilson v State of New York, 61 AD3d 1367 [4th Dept 2009]. The Notice of Intention, however, is not a pleading and therefore need not include all the facts necessary to state a cause of action, but it must set forth the "general nature of the claim" (Sega v State of New York, 246 AD2d 753, 755 [3d Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 805 [1998]). The Notice of Intention must also contain an indication of "the manner in which the claimant was injured and how the State was negligent" (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, 768 [4th Dept 1980]). In other words, "substantial compliance with Section 11 is what is required" (Heisler v State of New York, supra). In this particular matter, claimant clearly set forth the date when this claim arose, and the specific location where the claim arose (the stairs in the International Food Pavilion near the Polish restaurant). Claimant also alleged that the stairs were wet with water that had been negligently left on the stairs, and that a woman was in the area with a mop, but had not cleaned the wet stairs and floor. Based on these allegations, the manner in which defendant was negligent can be reasonably inferred (Ferrugia v State of New York, 237 AD2d 858 [3d Dept 1997]) and, based on this information provided, the State would be able to conduct an investigation and assess its risk of being found liable (Cendales v State of New York, 2 AD3d 1165 [3d Dept 2003]).
Accordingly, the Court finds that claimant's Notice of Intention to File a Claim was adequate, and therefore the time in which to serve and file a claim was extended pursuant to Court of Claims Act ?? 10 (3). Therefore, that aspect of defendant's motion seeking to dismiss the claim for untimely service and filing is hereby denied.
Notwithstanding the adequacy of the Notice of Intention, however, the Court must also examine the claim since defendant has also moved to dismiss the claim for failing to comply with Court of Claims Act ?? 11 (b).
In the claim, claimant merely alleges that she was injured on August 26, 2013, "near the food court at the New York State Fair." (See claim, para. 2). The claim also alleges that claimant was "injured when she slipped and fell near the food court of said Fair," and that the State failed "to dry, maintain and inspect the pavement in said place where the Plaintiff slipped and fell", violating its duty "to keep the Fair reasonably safe for the patrons of said Fair."
In contrast to the Notice of Intention, claimant has not identified the specific place where the accident occurred, nor has she made any reference whatsoever to any specific acts of negligence committed by the State, or that the State was on notice of any dangerous condition or conditions which allegedly caused the accident.
A failure to sufficiently describe the location of an accident so as to enable the State to promptly investigate the claim and ascertain its liability is a jurisdictional defect that requires dismissal of the claim (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201 [2003]; Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007]). Furthermore, the failure to sufficiently describe the place where claimant was injured or the manner in which the State was negligent subjects the claim to dismissal (Lepkowski v State of New York, supra; Wilson v State of New York, 61 AD3d 1367 [4th Dept 2009]).
Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
However, since the Court has determined that the Notice of Intention previously served by claimant sufficiently complies with the requirements of Court of Claims Act ?? 11 (b), the time within which to serve and file a claim has been extended for a period of two years as provided by Court of Claims Act ?? 10 (3). Since defendant acknowledges that the Notice of Intention was served on October 4, 2013, claimant still has adequate time within which to serve and file a claim which complies with the jurisdictional pleading requirements of Section 11 (b).
The Court further notes that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction over the State of New York only, and a claim against the State encompasses a suit against its various agencies and employees. Therefore, if claimant intends to pursue this claim, the caption should make reference to the State of New York only, and not to the "New York State Fair" or "the Great New York State Fair."
The Court of Claims also has jurisdiction over certain public authorities, not pertinent herein.
--------
Based upon the foregoing, therefore, it is
ORDERED, that motion No. M-85850 is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that claim No. 125015 is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice.
May 7, 2015
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims