Miranda v. State — 113 A.D.3d 943

Majority

p. 943

Javier Miranda, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 463]

We affirm. Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i), a notice of claim must be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Spaight v State of New York, 91 AD3d 995 , 995 [2012]; Femminella v State of New York, 71 AD3d 1319 , 1320 [2010]). Here, claimant’s substituted manner of service — priority mail— did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements (see Femminella v State of New York, 71 AD3d at 1320 ; Filozof v State of New York, 45 AD3d 1405 , 1406 [2007]; Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766 , 767 [1995]; Newman v State of New York, 5 Misc 3d 640 , 642 [2004]). That failure “divests the court

p. 944

of subject matter jurisdiction,” and, therefore, dismissal of the claim was required (Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121 , 1122 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Kolnacki v State of New York, 8 NY3d 277 , 281 [2007]). As a result, we need not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal advanced by defendant.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cases cited

Spaight v. State 91 AD3d 995 N.Y. App. Div. 2012-01-05 at 995 p. 943
Femminella v. State 71 AD3d 1319 N.Y. App. Div. 2010-03-18 at 1320 p. 943
Hodge v. State 213 AD2d 766 N.Y. App. Div. 1995-03-02 at 767 p. 943
Newman v. State 5 Misc 3d 640 N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2004-09-21 at 642 p. 943
Caci v. State 107 AD3d 1121 N.Y. App. Div. 2013-06-06 at 1122 p. 944
Kolnacki v. State 8 NY3d 277 N.Y. 2007-03-22 at 281 p. 944