Opinion
2014-01-16
Javier MIRANDA, Appellant, v. STATE of New York, Respondent.
Javier Miranda, Napanoch, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.
Javier Miranda, Napanoch, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN, STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ.
STEIN, J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Bruening, J.), entered July 26, 2012, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule and was subsequently confined to the special housing unit (hereinafter SHU) for 60 days. Upon his release from the SHU, claimant commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of guilt, which was thereafter administratively reversed, and this Court dismissed the petition as moot ( Matter of Miranda v. Bezio, 84 A.D.3d 1661, 924 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2011] ). Two years after his release from the SHU, claimant served a notice of intention to file a claim seeking monetary damages stemming from his confinement in the SHU. Four months later, claimant filed a notice of claim and served it upon the Attorney General by priority mail. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction based on improper service of the claim. The Court of Claims granted the motion and dismissed the claim. This appeal followed.
We affirm. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i), a notice of claim must be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested ( see Spaight v. State of New York, 91 A.D.3d 995, 995, 936 N.Y.S.2d 713 [2012]; Femminella v. State of New York, 71 A.D.3d 1319, 1320, 896 N.Y.S.2d 533 [2010] ). Here, claimant's substituted manner of service—priority mail—did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements ( see Femminella v. State of New York, 71 A.D.3d at 1320, 896 N.Y.S.2d 533; Filozof v. State of New York, 45 A.D.3d 1405, 1406, 844 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2007]; Hodge v. State of New York, 213 A.D.2d 766, 767, 622 N.Y.S.2d 1016 [1995]; Newman v. State of New York, 5 Misc.3d 640, 642, 783 N.Y.S.2d 796 [2004] ). That failure “divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction,” and, therefore, dismissal of the claim was required (Caci v. State of New York, 107 A.D.3d 1121, 1122, 967 N.Y.S.2d 440 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 277, 281, 832 N.Y.S.2d 481, 864 N.E.2d 611 [2007] ). As a result, we need not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal advanced by defendant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs. PETERS, P.J., LAHTINEN and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.