Case Name: Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-11-19
Citations: 133 A.D.3d 1049
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 1049–1050

Head Matter:
Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.
[19 NYS3d 199]

Opinion:
Rose, J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered January 29, 2014, which denied claimant's ap plication pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) for permission to file a late claim.
Claimant, an inmate, filed a claim seeking reimbursement for the value of certain personal property missing from his cell following a cell search. He served the claim on defendant by regular mail on July 29, 2013, and the 120-day period for filing a valid claim expired on August 7, 2013 (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). Defendant served an answer raising as an affirmative defense the lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction based upon claimant's failure to serve the claim by certified mail, return receipt requested as required by Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i). Thereafter, claimant made a pro se application for permission to file a late claim. The Court of Claims denied claimant's application and he now appeals.
We affirm. The provisions of Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) that vest the Court of Claims with discretionary authority to permit the filing of a late claim do not apply to inmate property claims (see Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2004]). Given that the claim here involves the loss of claimant's property following a cell search, his application for permission to file a late claim was properly denied. Significantly, claimant's failure to comply with the provisions of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requiring that the claim be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, is jurisdictional in nature (see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632, 632 [2014]; Zoeckler v State of New York, 109 AD3d 1133, 1133 [2013]). In view of this, and given that defendant raised it as an affirmative defense, the claim must be dismissed (see Zoeckler v State of New York, 109 AD3d at 1133). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.
Garry, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs, and claim dismissed.