Opinion
# 2014-049-022 Claim No. 117596 Motion No. M-84919
05-01-2014
GEORGE MCCRORY v. C.O. GRADEN REPPERT, C.O. BRIAN CRAWFORD, C.O. EDWARD ROSELL
George McCrory, Pro Se By: No Appearance Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The Court dismissed inmate's claim for failure to state the time when the claim accrued as required by Court of Claims Act § 11(b).
Case information
| UID: | 2014-049-022 |
| Claimant(s): | GEORGE MCCRORY |
| Claimant short name: | MCCRORY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | C.O. GRADEN REPPERT, C.O. BRIAN CRAWFORD, C.O. EDWARD ROSELL |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 117596 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84919 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | George McCrory, Pro Se By: No Appearance |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Roberto Barbosa, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 1, 2014 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In a claim filed October 28, 2009, George McCrory, an inmate proceeding pro se, makes various allegations against a number of correction officers for events that occurred at some point when he was housed at Southport Correctional Facility. Defendant filed an answer on December 3, 2009, in which it raised as affirmative defenses that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the named defendants, and that the claim failed to state the date of accrual as required by section 11 of the Court of Claims Act.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the claim based on these defenses. Claimant has not submitted any opposition to the motion.
Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires 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 . . . ." In Lepkowski v State of New York (1 NY3d 201 [2003]), the Court of Appeals held that the failure of a claim to set forth any of the specific items referenced in the statute resulted in a failure to invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction (see also Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 [2007] ["[t]he failure to satisfy any of the conditions" of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) is a "jurisdictional defect"]).
Here, the claim contains no reference to any date or time when the incident occurred. Indeed, there is nothing in the claim from which defendant could infer when it took place. Defendant is not required "to ferret out or assemble information that section 11(b) obligates the claimant to allege" (Lepkowski, 1 NY3d at 208). In sum, claimant's failure to set forth in the claim the time when the claim arose constitutes a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal (see Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865 [3d Dept 1970] [claim dismissed for failure to state the "time at which the claim arose," which rendered the claim "jurisdictionally defective"]).
In view of the foregoing, I need not address defendant's other ground for dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that motion number M-84919 be granted and that claim number 117596 be dismissed.
May 1, 2014
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims
Papers Considered
1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, and annexed exhibits.