FRANCIS v. STATE (2023)

DECISION & ORDER

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (David A. Weinstein, J.), dated May 6, 2020.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim and denied that branch of the claimant's cross-motion which was for leave to recommence the claim pursuant to CPLR 205(a).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Mabel Francis (hereinafter the decedent) died on July 6, 2016.  On February 2, 2018, the claimant, Amanda Francis, commenced this claim, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death against the State of New York related to the decedent's treatment at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn.  Although she had not been issued letters of administration, the claimant designated herself as the administrator of the decedent's estate in the caption of the claim.  On July 18, 2019, letters of administration were issued to the claimant.  In September 2019, the State moved pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3) and CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the claim on the ground that the claimant lacked the legal capacity to commence the claim.  In November 2019, the claimant cross-moved, among other things, for leave to recommence the claim pursuant to CPLR 205(a).  The Court of Claims, inter alia, granted the State's motion and denied that branch of the claimant's cross-motion.  The claimant appeals.

A claim against the State is allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law (see Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 911, 913, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218).  Consequently, the statutory requirements conditioning a claim are strictly construed and applied (see id. at 913, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218).  Court of Claims Act § 10(2) and (3), which concern wrongful death and personal injury claims, respectively, contemplate the formal appointment of an executor or administrator before the commencement of a claim against the State to recover damages for the same (see Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 N.Y.2d at 913, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218;  Kiesow v. State of New York, 161 A.D.3d 1060, 1061–1062, 78 N.Y.S.3d 192;  Thomas v. State of New York, 57 A.D.3d 969, 970, 871 N.Y.S.2d 333).

Here, the claim was filed on February 2, 2018, but the formal appointment of the claimant as the administrator of the decedent's estate did not occur until July 18, 2019.  Where, as here, a claim has been commenced by a claimant prior to such an appointment, the claim must be dismissed (see Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 N.Y.2d at 913, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218;  Kiesow v. State of New York, 161 A.D.3d at 1061–1062, 78 N.Y.S.3d 192;  Thomas v. State of New York, 57 A.D.3d at 970, 871 N.Y.S.2d 333).

Because the claimant had no authority to file the claim against the State before she was appointed decedent's administrator, the Court of Claims properly denied her requested relief under CPLR 205(a) (see Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 252 A.D.2d 921, 922–923, 676 N.Y.S.2d 345, affd 93 N.Y.2d 911, 690 N.Y.S.2d 851, 712 N.E.2d 1218).

Contrary to the claimant's contention, the Court of Claims had no discretion to consider a late filed claim because the claimant's request to the court was not made within the applicable statute of limitations periods for the underlying causes of action as required by Court of Claims Act § 10(6) (see Shah v. State of New York, 178 A.D.3d 871, 873, 111 N.Y.S.3d 910).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of the foregoing.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING and WARHIT, JJ., concur.