What did the court decide?

The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the claim because the original filing listed the wrong year for the alleged assaults, which the court treated as a jurisdictional defect that cannot be fixed by amendment.

Who is affected by this decision?

The claimant (the incarcerated individual who filed the suit) is directly affected because his claim was dismissed; the ruling also confirms that claimants suing the State must strictly comply with the Court of Claims filing requirements.

Could the claimant have corrected the mistake?

No; the court held that because the incorrect year deprived it of jurisdiction under Court of Claims Act § 11(b), the Court of Claims lacked authority to permit an amendment to cure that defect.

Can this decision be appealed further?

Yes, the claimant could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed based on established precedent, making further review discretionary.

Moore v. State of New York

Docket CV-25-0161

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02312
Docket: CV-25-0161

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims denying claimant's motion to amend a claim and dismissing the claim

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Ernestiaze Moore's claim against the State under the Adult Survivors Act. Moore alleged two sexual assaults by a correction officer and originally filed dates in 2022, but counsel later disclosed the correct dates were in 2023. The Court of Claims found the incorrect year was a jurisdictional defect under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) that could not be cured by amendment, and therefore denied Moore's motion to amend and dismissed the claim. The appellate court concluded the statutory filing requirements must be strictly construed and affirmed.

Issues Decided

Whether an incorrect year in the dates alleged in a Court of Claims claim is a jurisdictional defect under Court of Claims Act § 11(b)
Whether the Court of Claims may permit amendment under Court of Claims Act § 9(8) to correct an incorrect date that allegedly deprives the court of jurisdiction
Whether equitable estoppel or lack of prejudice can save a claim that fails to state the correct date under § 11(b)

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that the State's waiver of sovereign immunity is conditioned on strict compliance with Court of Claims Act § 11(b), including the requirement to state when the claim arose with sufficient definiteness. Precedent establishes that failure to correctly identify the date is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by amendment. Because the incorrect year deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court of Claims properly denied amendment and dismissal was required.

Authorities Cited

Court of Claims Act § 11(b)
Court of Claims Act § 9(8)
Wright v State of New York43 NY3d 532 (2025)
Kolnacki v State of New York8 NY3d 277 (2007)

Parties

Appellant: Ernastiaze Moore
Respondent: State of New York
Judge: Clark, J.P.
Attorney: Jillian Rosen (of Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP)
Attorney: Douglas E. Wagner (of counsel for Letitia James, Attorney General)

Key Dates

Claim filed: 2023-11-01
Court conference (virtual): 2024-02-01
Court of Claims order entered (denying amendment and dismissing claim): 2024-11-22
Appellate decision date: 2026-04-16

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult appellate counsel about further review
If the claimant wants to pursue the matter, discuss with counsel the viability and timing of seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and whether any novel issues justify discretionary review.
2
Assess legislative or procedural alternatives
Consider whether the newly added Court of Claims Act § 11(d) or other statutory changes might provide relief or a route to refile, and consult counsel about whether a new timely claim can be filed consistent with applicable limits.
3
Document preservation and investigation
Preserve all records and evidence relating to the alleged incidents and administrative complaints, and have counsel develop a factual record in case further litigation or refiling becomes possible.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appeals court affirmed dismissal of the claim because the original filing listed the wrong year for the alleged assaults, which the court treated as a jurisdictional defect that cannot be fixed by amendment.
Who is affected by this decision?: The claimant (the incarcerated individual who filed the suit) is directly affected because his claim was dismissed; the ruling also confirms that claimants suing the State must strictly comply with the Court of Claims filing requirements.
Could the claimant have corrected the mistake?: No; the court held that because the incorrect year deprived it of jurisdiction under Court of Claims Act § 11(b), the Court of Claims lacked authority to permit an amendment to cure that defect.
Can this decision be appealed further?: Yes, the claimant could seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, but the Appellate Division affirmed based on established precedent, making further review discretionary.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Moore v State of New York - 2026 NY Slip Op 02312

Moore v State of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02312

April 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Third Department

Ernastiaze Moore, Appellant,

v

State of New York, Respondent.

Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026

CV-25-0161

Calendar Date: February 9, 2026

Before: Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Powers And Corcoran, JJ.

Liakas Law, PC, New York City (Jillian Rosen of Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Douglas E. Wagner of counsel), for respondent.

Clark, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Catherine Schaewe, J.), entered November 22, 2024, which denied claimant's motion to amend the claim and dismissed the claim.

In November 2023, claimant, an incarcerated individual, filed a claim against defendant under the Adult Survivors Act (
see
CPLR 214-j [hereinafter ASA]), seeking damages for two alleged sexual assaults perpetrated against him by a correction officer. The claim described the nature and circumstances of the incidents, specified the name of the correction officer who allegedly perpetrated the assaults, and set forth January 20, 2022 and June 9, 2022 as the incident dates. Defendant answered and raised various affirmative defenses, including that the claim failed to comport with the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) insofar as it did not specify sufficient information about the time, place and nature of the conduct to enable defendant to adequately investigate.

During a virtual court conference in February 2024, claimant's counsel revealed that the year of the alleged incidents as set forth in the claim was incorrect and that the correct dates were January 20, 2023 and June 9, 2023, respectively. Claimant's counsel thereafter sent an email to defendant's counsel that included a copy of a proposed amended claim reflecting the correct year of the incidents, seeking for counsel to stipulate to a correction of the year. After defendant declined to do so, claimant moved to amend the claim to reflect the correct dates of the alleged sexual assaults. Defendant opposed the motion. The Court of Claims denied claimant's motion and dismissed the claim, finding that it failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) insofar as it set forth incorrect dates of the alleged assaults and that the defect was jurisdictional. Claimant appeals.FN1

We are constrained to affirm. With the enactment of the Court of Claims Act, the State has waived its sovereign immunity from suits for money damages "provided [that] the claimant complies with the limitations" set forth in article II of the Act (Court of Claims Act § 8;
see

Kolnacki v State of New York
, 8 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]). Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) — which is contained within article II — requires a claim to state "(1) 'the nature of the claim'; (2) 'the time when' it arose; (3) the 'place where it arose'; (4) 'the items of damage or injuries claimed to have been sustained'; and (5) 'the total sum claimed' " (
Wright v State of New York
, 43 NY3d 532, 538 [2025], quoting
Lepkowski v State of New York
, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003]). "To adequately plead when the claim arose, the claimant must allege the date of the tort or other claim, as the case may be, with sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its potential liability" (
Matter of Geneva Foundry Litig.
, 173 AD3d 1812, 1813 [4th Dept 2019] [citation omitted]). " 'Because suits against the State are allowed only by the
State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, [the conditions of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b)] must be strictly construed' " (
Wright v State of New York
, 43 NY3d at 538, quoting
Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth.
, 81 NY2d 721, 724 [1992];
see

Kolnacki v State of New York,
8 NY3d at 280;
Lichtenstein v State of New York
, 93 NY2d 911, 913 [1999]), and " '[t]he failure to satisfy any of the conditions is a jurisdictional defect' mandating dismissal" (
Wright v State of New York
, 43 NY3d at 539, quoting
Kolnacki v State of New York
, 8 NY3d at 281).

Claimant argues that, unlike situations where a claim fails to set forth any date of the alleged incident or lacks specificity in that regard, the claim here was not jurisdictionally defective since it comported with the "literal requirements" of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) by setting forth two specific dates of the alleged assaults, with only a one-digit mistake in the year. The point is well taken. However, inasmuch as the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) are to be " 'strictly construed' " (
Wright v State of New York
, 43 NY3d at 538, quoting
Dreger v New York State Thruway Auth.
, 81 NY2d at 724), courts of this State have consistently held that the failure to "correctly identify the date" on which the claim arose constitutes a jurisdictional defect (
Sacher v State of New York
, 211 AD3d 867, 876 [2d Dept 2022];
see Musumeci v State of New York
, 220 AD3d 877, 879 [2d Dept 2023];
Matter of DeMairo v State of New York
, 172 AD3d 856, 857 [2d Dept 2019];
compare Gang v State of New York
, 177 AD3d 1300, 1304 [4th Dept 2019]). We discern no basis to depart from those holdings and conclude that the claim here was jurisdictionally defective for failing to state the correct year of the alleged assaults.

Claimant additionally argues that the Court of Claims abused its discretion in declining to grant his motion to amend the claim to correct the error, citing Court of Claims Act § 9 (8) as the statutory mechanism authorizing such an amendment. Although such provision vests the Court of Claims with broad authority to "amend, correct, or modify any . . . claim . . . in furtherance of justice for any error in form or substance," such amendment authority applies to nonjurisdictional defects (Court of Claims Act § 9 [8];
see Gang v State of New York
, 177 AD3d at 1305). Here, by contrast, the defect deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction and "c[ould not] be cured through an amendment" (
Hogan v State of New York
, 59 AD3d 754, 755 [3d Dept 2009];
accord Dinerman v NYS Lottery
, 69 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2010],
lv dismissed
15 NY3d 911 [2010];
compare Harris v State of New York
, 38 AD3d 144, 150 [2d Dept 2007];
Central School Dist. No. 1, Towns of Lake George, Queensbury, Bolton & Fort Ann v State of New York
, 28 AD2d 1062, 1062 [3d Dept 1967]).FN2 Accordingly, the Court of Claims had no authority to grant claimant's motion to amend and properly denied the motion.

Claimant's
remaining contentions regarding equitable estoppel and lack of prejudice are also unavailing (
see Wright v State of New York
, 43 NY3d at 539;
Pagano v New York State Thruway Auth.
, 235 AD2d 408, 408 [2d Dept 1997],
lv denied
90 NY2d 804 [1997]). We recognize that the result in this case is " 'harsh, [but] it is for the Legislature, not this Court, to set the terms of the State's waiver of immunity' " (
Viscuso v State of New York
, 238 AD3d 1402, 1405 [3d Dept 2025], quoting
Kolnacki v State of New York
, 8 NY3d at 281). Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not expressly addressed, have been considered and found unavailing. Accordingly, the order must be affirmed.

Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: Prior to oral argument on the appeal, defense counsel provided a letter to this Court advising that the Legislature recently added a new subdivision (d) to Court of Claims Act § 11, which exempts certain claims relating to injuries suffered while in custody from the jurisdictional requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Defendant's counsel argued in the letter that the claim here does not fit within the parameters of that subdivision and claimant's counsel conceded as much during oral argument before this Court.

Footnote 2: Contrary to claimant's contention, the Second Department's decision in
Buonincontro v State of New York
(241 AD3d 486 [2d Dept 2025]), which held that the Court of Claims erred in failing to allow the claimant to amend an unverified notice of intention to file a claim to comport with the verification requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), is distinguishable and does not support a finding that the Court of Claims had the authority to permit an amendment in this case.