CARDENAS v. STATE (2023)

Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Linda K. Mejias–Glover, J.), entered July 6, 2022, which denied claimant's motion for leave to file a late claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Claimant failed to comply with the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) and strict construction of and compliance with such statutory preconditions to suit under the Court of Claims Act is required (see Watson v. State of New York, 159 A.D.3d 446, 446–447, 69 N.Y.S.3d 485 [1st Dept. 2018]).

Here, the proposed claim did not specify the location, date, time, or circumstances of the accident with sufficient specificity to permit respondent to investigate its liability, and thus the claim was jurisdictionally defective (see Sega v. State of New York, 246 A.D.2d 753, 754–755, 668 N.Y.S.2d 56 [3d Dept. 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 805, 677 N.Y.S.2d 781, 700 N.E.2d 320 [1998];  Cobin v. State of New York, 234 A.D.2d 498, 499, 651 N.Y.S.2d 202 [2d Dept. 1996], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 925, 664 N.Y.S.2d 259, 686 N.E.2d 1353 [1997]).  Dismissal of the claim was further warranted as claimant failed to allege itemized injuries as the proposed notice merely alleged that she sustained “[i]njuries to the neck and back” (see Sanchez v. State of New York, 40 A.D.3d 450, 451–452, 837 N.Y.S.2d 29 [1st Dept. 2007]).

That respondent did not seek dismissal of claimant's leave application on the basis that the proposed claim did not comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(b) is immaterial because the Court of Claims' lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, and thus the court properly dismissed the claim sua sponte (see Davis v. State of New York, 64 A.D.3d 1197, 882 N.Y.S.2d 623 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 717, 2010 WL 154923 [2010];  Signature Health Ctr., LLC v. State of New York, 42 A.D.3d 678, 679, 840 N.Y.S.2d 191 [3d Dept. 2007]).  Since the claim is jurisdictionally defective for nonconformity with the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b), this Court need not reach claimant's remaining contentions as to the factors in determining whether to permit the filing of a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) (see Lepkowski v. State of New York, 1 N.Y.3d 201, 209, 770 N.Y.S.2d 696, 802 N.E.2d 1094 [2003]).  In any event, we find that the Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion under this section as well.