Port Grove Associates, et al. v State of New York
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Eminent domain and Court of Claims jurisdiction, specifically whether an appropriation claim against the State must be served on the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail for the court to obtain jurisdiction.
The Court of Claims held that the claim should be dismissed because the claimants served the claim by regular first-class mail, which the court treated as a jurisdictional defect.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to the State and denied the State's motion to dismiss the appropriation claim.
Because Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i) [generally requires service on the Attorney General personally or by certified mail, but expressly excepts claims for the appropriation by the State of lands] does not make that method of service a jurisdictional prerequisite for appropriation claims. The court also held that Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 508 [provides that the State's time to file its appraisal is computed from service on the Attorney General] affects only the timing of the State's appraisal, not the court's jurisdiction, and EDPL 503(A) [requires filing a claim within three years after notice of acquisition and serving a copy on the designated official, which for State acquisitions is the Attorney General] did not require dismissal here.
Background
In July 2019, the State appropriated portions of the claimants' real property in Brookhaven, and in August 2019 served notices of appropriation. On June 23, 2022, the claimants filed a claim in the Court of Claims seeking damages for the taking. They mailed the claim to the Office of the Attorney General by regular first-class mail. The State answered and asserted lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction based on improper service, then moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim.
Lower Court Decision
The Court of Claims granted the State's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claimants' failure to serve the Attorney General by a method specified in Court of Claims Act § 11 deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that appropriation claims are treated differently from most other Court of Claims actions. Relying on the text of Court of Claims Act § 11(a)(i), Court of Claims Act § 10(1) [appropriation claims do not require service on the Attorney General within the statutory time limit], the legislative history of the 1984 amendments, and Sutton v State of New York, the court concluded that service on the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail is not a jurisdictional prerequisite in a claim seeking only damages for the State's appropriation of land. The court further held that EDPL 508 only determines when the State must file its appraisal after the Attorney General is served, and that any noncompliance affected appraisal timing rather than the validity of the claim itself. It also rejected the State's reliance on EDPL 503(A), finding that statute did not require dismissal under these circumstances.
Legal Significance
This decision confirms that in New York appropriation claims, the State's waiver of sovereign immunity does not hinge on strict compliance with the ordinary service methods in Court of Claims Act § 11 when the claim concerns the State's taking of land. For such claims, improper service on the Attorney General may delay the State's appraisal obligations under EDPL 508, but it does not deprive the Court of Claims of jurisdiction.
For a claim seeking compensation for the State's appropriation of real property, failure to serve the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail is not a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal; it affects only the timetable for the State's appraisal.