Lepkowski v. State, 98 N.Y.2d 206 (2002)

Suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed, mandating specific details in the claim.

Summary

This case addresses whether claims against the State of New York for unpaid overtime comply with the substantive pleading requirements of Section 11(b) of the Court of Claims Act. The Court of Appeals held that the claims failed to meet these requirements because they did not adequately specify the time and place the claims arose, itemize damages, or state the total sum claimed. The court emphasized that the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity is contingent upon strict compliance with these conditions. The Court also clarified that the State must follow CPLR 3022 to preserve objections regarding verification.

Facts

Claimants, public employees in salary grade 23 or higher represented by the Public Employees Federation (PEF), filed claims against the State seeking unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The claims alleged they worked over 40 hours in unspecified work weeks. The original federal lawsuit based on the same claims was dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The subsequent claims filed in the Court of Claims lacked specific details regarding when and where the overtime was worked, the items of damage, and the total amount claimed.

Procedural History

The claimants initially filed suit in federal court, which was dismissed. They then filed claims in the New York Court of Claims. The Court of Claims consolidated two cases, Abelson into Lepkowski. The Court of Claims initially denied the State’s motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the State’s motion. The Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the claims complied with the substantive pleading requirements of Section 11(b) of the Court of Claims Act, specifically regarding the time and place the claims arose, itemization of damages, and total sum claimed.

2. Whether the State waived its objection to defective verification of the claims by failing to comply with CPLR 3022.

Holding

1. No, because the claims did not adequately specify the time and place the claims arose, itemize damages, or state the total sum claimed as required by Section 11(b) of the Court of Claims Act.

2. The court did not rule on the verification issue because the claims were jurisdictionally defective for nonconformity with section 11 (b)’s substantive pleading requirements. However, the court held that the State must follow CPLR 3022 to preserve objections regarding verification.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity is conditional upon strict compliance with the requirements of the Court of Claims Act. Section 11(b) specifically requires the claim to state the time and place the claim arose, the nature of the claim, the items of damage, and the total sum claimed. The court found that the claims failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the time and place of the alleged overtime work, offering only broad date ranges and failing to specify work locations. The court emphasized that it is the claimant’s burden to provide these details, not the State’s to ferret them out. "[B]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."

Regarding verification, the Court clarified that CPLR 3022, which outlines the procedure for objecting to defective verifications, applies to claims in the Court of Claims. This means the State must promptly notify the claimant of any defects in verification to preserve its objection. The court emphasized that verification must take place in the Court of Claims following the same method of action or mode of procedure employed for an action in Supreme Court.