Harper v. StateHarper v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Reynolds
Aрpeals from orders of the Court of Claims which dismissed the appellants’ claims. Appellants hаve filed claims seeking damages for the alleged contamination of their wells by a stockрile of State highway salt purportedly maintainеd on nearby State land. The claims as filed did not, hоwever, indicate the time when they arose аnd consequently the State moved to dismiss for the failure to comply with section 11 of the Court of Claims Act. Finding that this infirmity deprived it of jurisdiction, the court grantеd the motion but allowed the claimants to serve an amended claim. Through a service blunder аmended claims filed by the appellants werе jurisdictionally invalid. Upon realizing this situation motions wеre made by the appellants for an extеnsion of time in which to file or for leave to file nunc pro tunc, but these motions were subsequently withdrawn and the instant аppeals seeking review of the dismissal of the claims were thereafter filed. The Court of Claims in dismissing the claims on the basis of a failure to cоmply with section 11 concluded that an allegаtion of the time at which the claim arose is аn “ elementary procedural precеpt ”, the absence of which renders the clаim jurisdictionally defective in that the State’s waiver of immunity and consent to be sued is conditioned uрon compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, including notice (Buckles v. State of New York, 221 N. Y. 418). We concur in this conclusion. All elements of the claim need not be set оut with formalistic rigidity, but it must convey notice to the State to enable it to properly investigate, defend, and/or settle the claim (see Chalmers é Son v. State of New York, 271 App. Div. 699, affd. 297 N. Y. 690), and the time at which the claim arose is clearly an imрortant element of such notice. The time оf accrual is essential to determine not only the applicability of the Statute of Limitatiоns but also the amount of damages involved (Chalmers & Son v. State of New York, supra). And while thе claims here are for continuing damages, and no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose, it has never been claimed or shown that the appellants were unable to learn the time. Morеover, if the damages are, in fact, continuing, there is nothing to prevent appellants from filing new claims every 90 days (Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd. 3). We do not сonsider Rizzo v. State of New York (202 Mise. 439, mot. to dsm. app. granted, 4 A D 2d 841) relied uрon by the appellants as controlling on this issue. Orders affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.