| Triani v State of New York |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08214 [44 AD3d 1032] |
| October 30, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Moises Triani, Respondent, v State of New York,Appellant. |
—[*1] Queller, Fisher, Dienst, Serrins, Washor & Kool, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Ephrem Wertenteilof counsel), for respondent.
In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order ofthe Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated August 30, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss theclaim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion isgranted.
Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) requires, inter alia, that a claim set forth the place wherethe claim arose. While section 11 (b) does not require "absolute exactness," a claim must setforth the nature of the claim and the time and place where it arose (see Grumet v State ofNew York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998]). It must do so with " 'sufficient definiteness toenable the State to be able to investigate the claim promptly and to ascertain its liability under thecircumstances' " (Grumet v State of New York, 256 AD2d 441, 442 [1998], quotingHeisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767 [1980]).
Section 11 (b) was recently amended to eliminate the requirement in certain types of cases,including personal injury cases, that the claim allege the total sum claimed (see L 2007,ch 606, § 1; Kerin v City Univ. of N.Y., 43 AD3d 1110 [2007]; Moore v Stateof New York, 43 AD3d 1117 [2007]). The recent amendment, however, leaves in place theremaining requirements of section 11 (b), such as the requirement that the claim allege the placewhere it arose. The law continues to be that strict [*2]compliancewith the jurisdictional requirements of the Court of Claims Act is necessary (see Long v Stateof New York, 7 NY3d 269, 276 [2006]; Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d201, 206-208 [2003]; Alston v State of New York, 97 NY2d 159, 163-164 [2001]).
In this case, the claim's description of the accident location was not sufficiently definite tosatisfy section 11 (b), and thus the claim was jurisdictionally defective (see Cobin v State ofNew York, 234 AD2d 498, 499 [1996]). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss theclaim should have been granted.
In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contentions.Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.