Source: http://maclaw.nycourts.gov/claims/search/display.html?terms=&url=/claims/html/2018-040-064.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-26 09:13:58
Document Index: 723717224

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 7']

RANSOM v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2018-040-064, Claim No. 128953, Motion No. M-91689
State's Motion to Dismiss Claim as untimely served granted.
UID: 2018-040-064
Claimant(s): JAMES E. RANSOM, DONALD C. RANSOM, MICHAEL J. RANSOM AND OTHERS
Claimant short name: RANSOM
Claim number(s): 128953
Motion number(s): M-91689
Claimant's attorney: Michael J. Ransom, Pro Se
Signature date: July 24, 2018
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to dismiss the Claim, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (8), on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Claim and personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, as a result of Claimants' failure to timely serve the Claim as required by Court of Claims Act §§ 10(3), 10(4) and 11(a)(i), is granted. The remainder of the Motion is denied as moot.
This pro se Claim, which was filed with the office of the Clerk of the Court on December 16, 2016, asserts that, on or about August 22, 2016, the area, shown on the survey Map No. 50 set forth in schedule "B" attached to the Claim experienced heavy rains and flooding that washed out and otherwise damaged a portion of the Eagle Bay-Sixth Lake State Highway and stream channel and improvements therein and the adjacent portions of the lands thereto. It is alleged that Claimants notified the State of New York to repair the damage, as agreed in the highway and easement agreement, but the State failed and refused to do so (Claim, ¶ 2).
The Claim further alleges the culvert in the drainage channel flooded and washed out causing it and the road above to collapse and wash away (Claim, ¶ 3). When the State refused to make the requested repairs, Claimants hired a contractor to make the repairs and improvements (id., ¶ 4). The repairs were completed on September 16, 2016 (id.).
Pursuant to the Court of Claims Act provisions applicable to property damage actions, Claimants were required to file and serve their Claim within 90 days from the date of accrual unless a written Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served upon the Attorney General within such time period. In that case, the Claim itself was required to be filed and served upon the Attorney General within two years after the accrual of the Claim (to the extent Claimant asserts injuries caused by negligence or unintentional torts) (Court of Claims Act §§ 10[3]; Kairis v State of New York (113 AD3d 942 [3d Dept 2014]). In either case, Claimants were required to initiate action within 90 days of the Claim's accrual. In addition, a Claim alleging breach of contract must be filed and served within six months after accrual unless a written Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served upon the Attorney General within such time period. In that case, the Claim itself was required to be filed and served upon the Attorney General within two years after the accrual of the Claim (Court of Claims Act § 10[4]). Thus, in this situation, Claimants had to initiate action within 90 days for any cause of action asserting an intentional tort or negligence and six months for any cause of action asserting a breach of contract.
In its Answer, filed with the office of the Clerk of the Court on May 25, 2017, Defendant asserted as its Thirteenth Affirmative Defense that "[t]his Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the [C]laim and personal jurisdiction over the [D]efendant, the State of New York, as the [C]laim is untimely in that neither the Claim nor a Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served within six (6) months of the accrual of the [C]laim as required by Court of Claims Act Sections 11 and 10(4)", and as its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense that, "[t]o the extent that the Claim can be read to assert a cause of action for negligence, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the [C]laim and personal jurisdiction over the [D]efendant, the State of New York, as the [C]laim is untimely in that neither the Claim nor a Notice of Intention to File a Claim was served within ninety (90) days of the accrual of the [C]laim as required by Court of Claims Act Sections 11 and 10(3)."
In his affirmation submitted in support of the State's Motion, Defense counsel asserts that, according to the Claim, the repairs were completed by September 16, 2016 (Affirmation of Sean B. Virkler, Esq., ¶ 6) and that Claimants finished paying for the repairs on September 25, 2016 (id. and Ex. D attached). Defendant asserts that the Claim had to be filed and served on or before March 25, 2017 in order to comply with Court of Claims Act § 10(4) (id.)(1) . As stated above, the Claim was filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Court on December 16, 2016. The Claim was served upon Defendant on April 17, 2017 (id., ¶ 3 and Ex. A attached).
In opposition to Defendant's Motion, Claimant Michael J. Ransom concedes that Claimants served the Claim upon Defendant late. However, he asserts that Defendant did not suffer any prejudice as a result of such late service (Response to Notice of Motion, ¶ 3).
Based upon the foregoing, Defendant's Motion is granted and the Claim is dismissed for failure to timely serve it in accordance with Court of Claims Act §§ 10(3), 10(4), and 11(a)( i). The remainder of the Motion is denied as moot.
Claimants' Response to Defendant's Motion	2
1. To the extent that the Claim can be read to state a cause of action for negligence, the incident, and hence the accrual date, occurred on August 22, 2016. Defendant asserts that, in that case, the Claim would have had to have been filed and served even earlier, on November 20, 2016 (id., § 7).