Legal Opinion
Spaight v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 5, 2012PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGarry, J.
We affirm. Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) provides that a party seeking to file a claim against defendant must serve a copy of it upon the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested. As the claim here was sent by ordinary mail, the Court of Claims was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, the claim was properly dismissed (see Finnerty v New York State Thruway Auth., 75 NY2d 721, 723 [1989]; Rodriguez v State of New York, 307 AD2d 657, 657 [2003]). Contrary to claimant’s argument, this fatal defect was not cured by his May 2009 service of a notice of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Finnerty v. New York State Thruway AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Rodriguez v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Bush v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Pristell v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
3Cited by8 opinions
- Zoeckler v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Encarnacion v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Miranda v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Young v. State of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Encarnacion v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.