Encarnacion v. State, 112 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Encarnacion v. State, 112 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · …it is well established that the requirements of the court of claims act as to the filing of claims must be strictly construed because the question of timeliness of filing is jurisdictional at p. 1004 ✓
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dellecave v. State of New York (nyclaimsct, 2025-08-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Dellecave v. State of New York (3×)
nyclaimsct · 2025 · confidence medium
This Court agrees. "'It is well established that the requirements of the Court of Claims Act as to the filing of claims must be strictly construed because the question of timeliness of filing is jurisdictional'" ( Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003,1004 [3rd Dept 2013], quoting Bush v State of New York , 60 AD3d 1244, 1245 [3rd Dept 2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the first day of the 90-day period was August 26, 2021, and the 90th day was November 23, 2021, the Court of Claims properly determined that service one day later was untimely, thereby divesting it of subject matter jurisdiction ( see Encarnacion v State of New York , 112 AD3d 1003, 1004 [3d Dept 2013]; Perry v State of New York , 64 AD2d 799, 800 [3d Dept 1978], lv denied 46 NY2d 710 [1979]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton Livery Leasing, LLC v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
It is uncontested that this filing occurred within 90 days of the accrual of the claim (see Court of Claims Act § 10 [3]; Encarnacion v State *1359 of New York, 112 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2013]), but the claim was filed by the president of claimant rather than by an attorney.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that the time requirements set forth in the *1358 Court of Claims Act for filing a claim are strictly construed, as such requirements are jurisdictional in nature (see Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2013]; Roberts v State of New York, 11 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Because the timeliness require- *1435 merits imposed by the Court of Claims Act have jurisdictional implications, they must be strictly construed (see Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2013]; Bush v State of New York, 60 AD3d at 1245 ).
discussed Cited "see" Baysah v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Inasmuch “as suits against defendant are permitted only by virtue of its waiver of sovereign immunity and are in derogation of the common law, the failure to strictly comply with the filing or service provisions of the Court of Claims Act divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction and compels dismissal of the claim” (Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Encarnacion v State of New York, 112 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2013]; see also Robinson v State of New York, 38 AD3d 1030, 1030 [2007]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bernabe Encarnacion
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 5, 2013.
112 A.D.3d 1003
Peters.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Peters, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Weinstein, J.), entered September 24, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Claimant, an inmate, commenced this action seeking to recover damages for defendant’s alleged improper disclosure of his confidential medical records. Defendant answered and thereafter moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not timely filed and served. The Court of Claims granted the motion, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “It is well established that the requirements of the Court of Claims Act as to the filing of claims must be strictly construed because the question of timeliness of filing is jurisdictional” (Bush v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d 1121, 1122 [2013]). Whether grounded in negligence or intentional tort, claimant was required to serve and file his claim, or serve a notice of intention to file the claim, within 90 days of its accrual (see Court of Claims Act §§ 10 [3], [3-b]; 11 [a] [i]; Skiptunas v State of New York, 290 AD2d 868, 870 [2002]). Claimant’s claim accrued on August 23, 2007, the date when he alleges that defendant disclosed his confidential medical information (see A.F. v State of New York, 60 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2009]). As claimant failed to file his claim within 90 days thereof, the Court of Claims was divested of subject matter jurisdiction and the claim was properly dismissed (see Davis v State of New York, 89 AD3d 1287, 1287-1288 [2011]; Milner v New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 24 AD3d 977, 978 [2005]).

Claimant’s argument that his claim should have been treated as a timely served notice of intention to file a claim was not raised before the Court of Claims and, therefore, is unpreserved for our review (see Bush v State of New York, 60 AD3d at 1245; Carter v State of New York, 284 AD2d 810, 811 [2001]).* To the extent not specifically addressed herein, claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Rose, Lahtinen and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Even assuming, arguendo, that a claim may properly be treated as a notice of intention to file a claim (compare Court of Claims Act § 10 [8] [permitting a claimant to apply for permission to have a timely served notice of intention to file a claim deemed a timely served claim]), any such treatment would be fruitless here inasmuch as claimant did not serve a subsequent claim upon the Attorney General as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (3) (see Caci v State of New York, 107 AD3d at 1121 n 1, 1124; cf. Spaight v State of New York, 91 AD3d 995, 996 [2012]).