| Bush v State of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02271 [60 AD3d 1244] |
| March 26, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Timothy D. Bush, Appellant, v State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), forrespondent.
Kane, J. Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Schaewe, J.), entered January 28,2008, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the claim.
Claimant, an inmate, alleged that certain items of his personal property were lost by theDepartment of Correctional Services. When claimant's administrative remedies were exhaustedupon receipt of a memo dated September 1, 2004 denying his claim, claimant served upondefendant a notice of intention to file a claim. Claimant subsequently filed a claim againstdefendant on April 18, 2005. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim as untimely, promptingthis appeal.
We affirm. It is well established that "the requirements of the Court of Claims Act as to thefiling of claims must be strictly construed because the question of timeliness of filing isjurisdictional" (Matter of Welch v State of New York, 71 AD2d 494, 498 [1979], lvdenied 50 NY2d 802 [1980]; accord Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001[2004]). Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (9), an inmate seeking to recover damagesfor lost personal property must file a claim within 120 days of exhausting his or heradministrative remedies (see Pristell vState of New York, 40 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2007]; Matter of McCullough v State of New York, 3 AD3d 749, 749[2004]). Contrary to claimant's contention, his filing of a notice of intention to file a claim didnot extend the time within which the claim must be served or filed (see Pristell v State ofNew York, 40 AD3d at 1198-1199). As claimant filed his claim well beyond the 120-[*2]day limit, the Court of Claims properly dismissed it as untimely.
Claimant's remaining contentions were either not raised before the Court of Claims and aretherefore unpreserved for our review (see Carter v State of New York, 284 AD2d 810,811 [2001]) or have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.
Cardona, P.J., Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.