Opinion
# 2017-049-035 Claim No. 129848 Motion No. M-90861
12-06-2017
TEKIYAH M. YISRAEL-COHEN v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, NYS GOVERNOR, US PRESIDENT, PANAMANIAN GOV. PRESIDENT-CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR, NYC MAYOR, MCU CREDIT UNION, LIBERTY MUTUAL & MUNICIPALITIES THEREIN
Tekiyah M. Yisrael-Cohen, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2017-049-035 |
| Claimant(s): | TEKIYAH M. YISRAEL-COHEN |
| Claimant short name: | YISRAEL-COHEN |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | J.P. MORGAN CHASE, NYS GOVERNOR, US PRESIDENT, PANAMANIAN GOV. PRESIDENT-CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR, NYC MAYOR, MCU CREDIT UNION, LIBERTY MUTUAL & MUNICIPALITIES THEREIN |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 129848 |
| Motion number(s): | M-90861 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | DAVID A. WEINSTEIN |
| Claimant's attorney: | Tekiyah M. Yisrael-Cohen, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Lawrence E. Kozar, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 6, 2017 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
By claim filed June 15, 2017, claimant Tekiyah Yisrael-Cohen, proceeding pro se, makes a myriad of allegations against various entities and individuals. The claim's allegations are difficult to decipher; for instance, Yisrael Cohen alleges:
"N.Y. Supreme Clerks & Appellate Clerks and Judges refuse to enforce Default Judgment ruling for Non Appearance of Defendants. Additionally notwithstanding denying discriminatory acts forged against me from being a 5/8/2008 counterfeiters J.P. Morgan Chase to construing NYPD wrongful arrests and Harlem Hospital seizure in collaboration with FDNY EMS ambulett [sic] . . ."
Defendant State of New York moves to dismiss the claim on the ground that it was improperly served by Federal Express mail. Appended to defendant's motion is a copy of the envelope in which the claim was served on the Office of the Attorney General. In her response, claimant does not address the ground on which defendant moves, but instead elaborates upon her claim.
Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(I) provides in pertinent part that:
"[A] copy [of the claim] shall be served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general within the times hereinbefore provided for filing with the clerk of the court . . ."
It is well established that compliance with these service requirements is a jurisdictional prerequisite for bringing suit in this Court, and service by an unauthorized method therefore compels dismissal (see Brown v State of New York, 114 AD3d 632, 632-633 [3d Dept. 2014]; Fulton v State of New York, 35 AD3d 977, 978 [3d Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Govan v State of New York, 301 AD2d 757, 758 [3d Dept. 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]), as long as the defect is raised with particularity either by a pre-answer motion to dismiss, or in the answer itself (see Court of Claims Act § 11[c]).
Here, defendant raises claimant's improper service in a pre-answer motion and has demonstrated that the claim was served via Federal Express mail, which is not an authorized mode of service. Nor does claimant dispute that her claim was sent by Federal Express mail. She has therefore failed to rebut the State's showing that the claim was not lawfully served.
Accordingly, defendant's motion no. M-90861 is hereby granted, and the claim is dismissed.
December 6, 2017
Albany, New York
DAVID A. WEINSTEIN
Judge of the Court of Claims Papers Considered: 1. Defendant's Notice of Motion, dated August 1, 2017, Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibit; 2. Claimant's Submission, filed September 1, 2017; and 3. Claimant's Submission, filed September 5, 2017.