From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cudjoe v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-08877.

Decided February 2, 2004.

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful confinement, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Scuccimarra, J.), dated August 20, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the claim.

Peter Cudjoe, Ossining, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, HOWARD MILLER and STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Court of Claims properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction since the claimant failed to serve the Attorney-General of the State of New York pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 ( see Finnerty v. New York State Thruway Auth., 75 N.Y.2d 721, 723; Pagano v. New York State Thruway Auth., 235 A.D.2d 408).

The claimant's contentions regarding permission to treat his notice of intention as a claim is not properly before this court, as the claimant failed to apply to the Court of Claims for such permission ( see Court of Claims Act § 10[a]; Calderazzo v. State of New York, 74 A.D.2d 954).

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cudjoe v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 2, 2004
4 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Cudjoe v. State

Case Details

Full title:PETER CUDJOE, appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, respondent. (CLAIM NO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 2, 2004

Citations

4 A.D.3d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 894

Citing Cases

Lee v. State

SynopsisFailure to serve the Attorney General results in a failure of subject matter jurisdiction, which…

Yefimova v. State

Here, the Court finds that the facts, as stated above, constitute sufficient proof that the claim was not, in…