Background
In July 2019, the State of New York appropriated portions of real property owned by Port Grove Associates and related claimants in the Town of Brookhaven, Long Island. The State served notices of appropriation in August 2019. On June 23, 2022 — within three years — the claimants filed a claim in the Court of Claims and served a copy on the Office of the Attorney General by regular first-class mail. The State answered, asserting an affirmative defense that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claim was improperly served (personal service or certified mail is required under Court of Claims Act § 11). The State moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Claims granted the motion. The claimants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed and denied the State’s motion. After examining the text and legislative history of both Court of Claims Act § 11 and Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) § 503(A), the court held that in appropriation proceedings, service on the Attorney General is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the Court of Claims’ power to hear the claim. Filing the claim with the Clerk of the Court of Claims is the jurisdictional act. Service on the Attorney General under EDPL 503(A) merely triggers the State’s obligation to file its appraisal — not the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court drew extensively on the 1984 legislative history amending Court of Claims Act § 11 and EDPL 508. Both the Attorney General’s memorandum in support and the Presiding Judge of the Court of Claims explicitly stated that the 1984 amendments were designed to clarify that, in appropriation cases, “jurisdiction will obtain upon the filing of the claim, without the added requirement of service on the Attorney General.” The claimants’ failure to serve by certified mail or personal service therefore affected only the timing of the State’s appraisal obligation, not the court’s jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- In eminent domain appropriation claims against the State, filing the claim with the Court of Claims Clerk is the jurisdictional act; service on the Attorney General is not.
- Service of a copy of the claim on the AG by regular first-class mail, while not the prescribed method, does not divest the Court of Claims of jurisdiction — it only suspends the State’s appraisal obligation.
- The 1984 legislative amendments to Court of Claims Act § 11 and EDPL 508 confirm this non-jurisdictional reading, and that history is central to the court’s reasoning.
Why It Matters
Property owners and condemnation counsel challenging State appropriations in the Court of Claims should understand this decision as a meaningful protection: a defect in the method of serving the Attorney General will not forfeit an otherwise timely-filed claim. However, the court’s ruling does not excuse the obligation to serve the AG at all — it only clarifies that the method of service is not jurisdictional. Claimants should still serve the AG by certified mail or personal service as required; this decision is a backstop, not a license to use irregular service methods. The decision may have broader significance for other Court of Claims plaintiffs navigating the technical requirements of filing against the State of New York.