From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Charbonneau v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

December 26, 1991

Appeal from the Court of Claims (Benza, J.).


On April 5, 1987 the New York State Thruway Authority Bridge over the Schoharie Creek in Montgomery County collapsed, causing the death of Roland Charbonneau and Jackson C. Dalton. As a result, claimants commenced the above claims against the State for wrongful death. The claims were filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims and were served upon the Attorney-General by regular mail. The State answered, asserting the defense of lack of jurisdiction and thereafter moved to dismiss the claims on that ground. Claimants opposed the State's motions and cross-moved for leave to file late claims pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) and CPLR 205 (a). The Court of Claims granted the State's motions to dismiss and this appeal ensued. We affirm.

Service of the claims upon the Attorney-General by ordinary mail was insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the State and they were, therefore, properly dismissed (see, Bogel v State of New York, 175 A.D.2d 493). Moreover, failure to properly commence the actions deprives claimants of the ameliorative tolling of the Statute of Limitations as provided for in CPLR 205 (a) (see, Matter of Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth., 177 A.D.2d 762).

We reject claimants' argument that the State is estopped from asserting lack of jurisdiction. Claimants did not argue that issue in the Court of Claims and are thereby precluded from raising it on appeal (see, Gunzburg v Gunzburg, 152 A.D.2d 537). However, if we were to consider the issue we would find that estoppel is not available against the State as a matter of public policy (see, Matter of E.F.S. Ventures Corp. v Foster, 71 N.Y.2d 359, 369). Moreover, the State pleaded lack of jurisdiction as an affirmative defense which clearly put claimants on notice of the claimed jurisdictional deficiency, thereby precluding any assertion of estoppel.

Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Charbonneau v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 26, 1991
178 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Charbonneau v. State

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA CHARBONNEAU, as Administratrix of the Estate of ROLAND…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 26, 1991

Citations

178 A.D.2d 815 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
577 N.Y.S.2d 534

Citing Cases

HSBC Bank U.S. v. Besharat

However, procedural statutes "may not retroactively destroy rights already accrued" (McKinney's Consolidated…

Chapman v. State of New York

rns on a determination as to the retroactive application of the 1990 amendment to Court of Claims Act § 11 (L…