Miranda v. State, 113 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
Miranda v. State, 113 A.D.3d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cappetta v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2025-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cappetta v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
As this "failure divests the court of subject matter jurisdiction[*2], . . . dismissal of the claim was required" ( Miranda v State of New York , 113 AD3d 943, 943-944 [3d Dept 2014] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Court of Claims Act § 11 [a] [i]; Trimble v State of New York , 142 AD3d at 1256).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trimble v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (i) requires that a claim be served on the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943, 943 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In addition, Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (1) requires that the claim be served upon the Attorney General either personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested (see Miranda v State of New York, 113 AD3d 943, 943 [2014]; Spaight v State of New York, 91 AD3d 995, 995 [2012]) and provides that service is not complete until the claim is received by the Attorney General (see Brown v New York State Bd. of Parole, 11 AD3d 842, 843 [2004]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Javier Miranda
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 16, 2014.
113 A.D.3d 943
Stein.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Stein, J.

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[*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.