| Wilson v State of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03246 [61 AD3d 1367] |
| April 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Patricia Wilson, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.(Claim No. 111995.) |
—[*1] Charles E. Lupia, Syracuse, for claimant-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi Minarik, J.), entered October22, 2007 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant to dismiss theclaim.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the lawwithout costs, the motion is granted and the claim is dismissed.
Memorandum: Claimant commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedlysustained when she slipped and fell while she was an inmate in a correctional facility. We agreewith defendant that the Court of Claims erred in denying its motion to dismiss the claim based onclaimant's failure to include required information in the notice of intention to file a claim. Courtof Claims Act § 10 (3) provides in relevant part that a claimant seeking to recoverdamages for personal injuries caused by the negligence of a New York State officer or employeemust file and serve a notice of claim or a notice of intention to file a claim within 90 days afterthe claim accrues. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), the claim or notice ofintention to file a claim "shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the natureof same, [and] the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained." Therequirements in section 11 (b) are "substantive conditions upon the State's waiver of sovereignimmunity" (Lepkowski v State of NewYork, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]), and noncompliance renders a claim "jurisdictionallydefective for nonconformity" (id. at 209; see Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277, 281 [2007],rearg denied 8 NY3d 994 [2007]). Furthermore, "a lack of prejudice to the State is animmaterial factor" (Byrne v State of New York, 104 AD2d 782, 784 [1984], lvdenied 64 NY2d 607 [1985]). Here, the notice of intention to file a claim is jurisdictionallydefective inasmuch as it fails to state both a year in which the injury allegedly occurred and aparticular road or place on such road where claimant allegedly fell, thereby failing to "state thetime when and place where such claim arose" (Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]; see Segav State of New York, 246 AD2d 753 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 805 [1998];Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498, 499 [1996], lv dismissed 90 NY2d 925[1997], rearg denied 91 NY2d 849 [1997]). We agree with defendant that "[t]he vagueand contradictory description of the accident scene in claimant's initial submissions made itimpossible for [defendant] to determine the situs of claimant's fall, having been described byclaimant as occurring both [in the draft processing area] and on [a sheet of ice that was coveringthe entire ROAD AREA] somewhere [*2]between [her] cellblockand [the draft processing area]" (Riefler v State of New York, 228 AD2d 1000, 1001[1996]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.