Kolnacki v. State of New York, 8 N.Y.3d 277 (2007)

Claims against the State of New York require strict compliance with the Court of Claims Act, including a statement of the total sum claimed as damages; failure to state this sum is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.

Summary

Betty Kolnacki sued the State of New York for personal injuries sustained in a fall at Artpark. Her initial claim was unverified and lacked a specific dollar amount for damages. A subsequent verified claim also omitted the total sum of damages, stating the full extent of injuries was unknown. The State moved to dismiss for failure to comply with Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The Court of Claims granted the motion. The Appellate Division reversed, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that strict compliance with the statute, including stating the total sum claimed, is a jurisdictional requirement.

Facts

Betty Kolnacki slipped and fell at Artpark on July 8, 2000, fracturing her left patella and suffering other injuries. She served an unverified claim on July 27, 2000, that did not specify a dollar amount of damages. Subsequently, she served and filed a verified claim that also lacked a specific total sum, stating that the full extent of her injuries was yet unknown and damages were undetermined.

Procedural History

The State raised an affirmative defense that the claim did not comply with Court of Claims Act § 11. The Court of Claims initially denied the State’s oral motion to dismiss but later granted a written motion after a trial on liability found the State partially at fault. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the claim. The New York Court of Appeals granted the State’s motion for leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a claimant’s failure to include the “total sum” of monetary damages in her claim against the State, as required by Court of Claims Act § 11(b), is a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the claim.

Holding

Yes, because suits against the State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and statutory requirements conditioning such suits must be strictly construed.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that under Court of Claims Act § 8, the State waives sovereign immunity only if the claimant complies with the Act’s limitations. Section 11(b) explicitly requires the claim to state the “total sum claimed.” The Court cited Lepkowski v. State of New York, which dismissed claims for failure to adequately allege when or where they arose, the items of damage, or the total sum claimed. The court rejected Kolnacki’s attempt to distinguish her case by arguing that only one deficiency existed (failure to allege the total sum) and that personal injury damages are harder to quantify. The Court stated: “Lepkowski made clear that all of the requirements in section 11 (b) are ‘substantive conditions upon the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity’ (1 NY3d at 207). The failure to satisfy any of the conditions is a jurisdictional defect.” The court reaffirmed the principle that nothing less than strict compliance with the Court of Claims Act’s jurisdictional requirements is sufficient. The court noted that while the result may seem harsh, it’s the Legislature’s role, not the Court’s, to define the terms of the State’s waiver of immunity.