| Hogan v State of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00603 [59 AD3d 754] |
| February 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| John Hogan, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), entered September21, 2007, which, among other things, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant, a prison inmate, filed this claim in March 2007 alleging that correction officersnegligently broke his radio by opening it during a facility-wide frisk. Defendant answered andraised various affirmative defenses asserting, among other things, that the court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction because claimant failed to state the total sum claimed as required by Court ofClaims Act § 11 (b). Claimant moved to strike defendant's affirmative defenses anddefendant cross-moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Claims deniedclaimant's motion and granted defendant's cross motion, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he claimshall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, the items ofdamage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and, except in an action to recover damagesfor personal injury, medical, dental or podiatric malpractice or wrongful death, the total sumclaimed." Here, claimant concedes that he failed to set forth the total sum claimed and, as thisCourt previously has held, the failure to strictly comply with the substantive pleadingrequirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) "is a jurisdictional defect warrantingdismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction" (Signature Health Ctr., LLC v State of New York, 42 AD3d 678,679 [2007]; see Jones v State of NewYork, 56 AD3d 906 [2008]). To the extent that claimant contends that he remedied thisdefect through a subsequent "addendum," we need note [*2]onlythat a jurisdictionally defective claim cannot be cured through an amendment (see ManshulConstr. Corp. v State Ins. Fund, 118 AD2d 983, 985 [1986]). Accordingly, the Court ofClaims properly granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim.
Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, withoutcosts.