#VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS NEW YORK FULL#
#VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS NEW YORK TRIAL#

''ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed'' (Lichtenstein v State of New York,ĩ3 NY2d 911, 913 quoting Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth.,Ĩ1 NY2d 721, 724 ). Specifically, 'he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose, the nature of same, and the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained and the total sum claimed' (Ĭourt of Claims Act § 11 ). ' The Act contains several conditions that must be met in order to assert a claim against the State. Under section 8 of the Court of Claims Act, the State has waived its sovereign immunity from liability 'provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article.

The Appellate Division granted the State's motion for leave to appeal to this Court and certified the following question: 'Was the order of this Court, entered April 28, 2006, properly made'? We reverse and answer the certified question in the negative. Two Justices dissented and voted to affirm, asserting that the requirements of section 11 (b) should be strictly construed and that the failure to state the total sum claimed was a jurisdictional defect. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss, found that the failure to satisfy the requirements of section 11 (b) was a jurisdictional defect and rejected Kolnacki's argument that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient.Ī majority of the Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the claim, finding that the extent of Kolnacki's damages were difficult to determine and that she alleged sufficient information for the State to ascertain its potential liability. Thereafter, the State filed a written motion to dismiss the claim on the same basis as its previous oral motion - claimant's failure to state the amount of damages.

#VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS NEW YORK TRIAL#

The court denied the motion without prejudice to the State serving and filing a formal written motion in compliance withĪfter a trial on the issue of liability, the court found the State partially at fault. The State orally moved to dismiss the claim, at the commencement of trial, for failure to comply with the requirements of section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act by omitting the amount of damages sought.

#VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS NEW YORK FULL#

Instead, the claim indicated that 'he full extent of claimant's injuries are not yet known,' and that she had 'incurred injuries, damages, medical and hospital expenses which are to date undetermined and will incur loss of earnings and impairment of health.' The verified bill of particulars likewise did not state the total sum claimed. Subsequently, Kolnacki served and filed a properly verified claim that, like the previous claim, did not contain a total amount of requested damages. Claim served herein do not comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the Court of Claims Act.'

The State answered raising several affirmative defenses including, as relevant here, that 'he contents of the.

Moreover, the claim did not state a specific dollar amount of damages. The original claim was served on or about July 27, 2000, but was neither filed nor verified. Her claim indicates that she fractured her left patella and suffered dental damage, as well as other bruises and lacerations. Kolnacki commenced this suit seeking to recover for personal injuries sustained on Jas the result of a slip and fall at Artpark - a park in Western New York with outdoor theater facilities. We conclude that it is and that her claim must be dismissed. The issue presented by this appeal is whether claimant Betty Kolnacki's failure to include the 'total sum' of monetary damages in her claim, as required byĬourt of Claims Act § 11 (b), is a jurisdictional defect. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.īetty Kolnacki, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

Verified bill of particulars new york