Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractjurisdictionwillcivil procedure
contractjurisdictionattorneyprecedentappealwillcorporationcivil procedurerespondent

Related Cases

Commonwealth v. Heckman, Not Reported in Atl. Rptr., 2017 WL 5195617
View Case »
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612
View Case »
People v. Burden, 72 Cal.App.3d 603, 140 Cal.Rptr. 282
View Case »
State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349
View Case »
Holloway v. United States, 845 F.3d 487
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Buckles v. State, 221 N.Y. 418, 117 N.E. 811

Facts

In 1912, William Buckles had a contract with the State of New York for resurfacing a highway. After starting the work, it became clear that additional materials and labor were necessary, which were not covered by the original contract. Buckles was directed to perform this additional work but was told that a supplemental contract would not be executed until the work was completed. After completing the work, Buckles was tendered a supplemental contract, which he signed, but he died shortly thereafter. The state never executed the contract, and despite the work being certified as complete, payment was delayed, leading to the claim filed by his estate.

In 1912 the respondent's intestate, William Buckles, had a contract with the state for resurfacing a portion of a highway in the county of Washington. After he commenced work under his contract it was discovered that, owing to the condition of the highway, work and materials not covered by it were required to put it in a proper condition.

Issue

Whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim against the state when no notice in writing of intention to file a claim has been filed, as required by section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim against the state when no notice in writing of intention to file a claim has been filed, as required by section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rule

Section 264 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that no claim against the state shall be maintained unless the claimant files a written notice of intention to file a claim within six months after the claim has accrued.

‘No claim other than for the appropriation of land shall be maintained against the state unless the claimant shall within six months after such claim shall have accrued, file in the office of the clerk of the Board of Claims and with the Attorney General a written notice of intention to file a claim against the state, stating the time when, and the place where such claim arose and in detail the nature of the same, which notice shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.’

Analysis

The court analyzed the requirements of section 264 and determined that the filing of a notice of intention was a jurisdictional requirement that could not be waived. The court noted that the state, as a sovereign entity, cannot be sued without its consent, and the conditions imposed by the legislature must be strictly adhered to in order to maintain a claim against the state. The absence of the required notice meant that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The state, being sovereign, is immune from action by a private suitor, except with its consent. Quayle v. State of N. Y., supra; Gates v. State of N. Y., 128 N. Y. 221, 228, 28 N. E. 373. It is not like a municipal corporation against which an action can be maintained and over which the courts have jurisdiction, irrespective of the conditions precedent which may be hedged around the commencement and maintenance of an action. On the contrary, no claim can be litigated at all against the state, except by its permission.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and affirmed the dismissal of the claim by the Court of Claims, concluding that the lack of a written notice of intention to file a claim barred the action.

The judgment appealed from, therefore, should be reversed, and the determination of the Court of Claims affirmed, with costs in this court and the Appellate Division.

Who won?

The State of New York prevailed in the case because the court found that the jurisdictional requirement of filing a notice of intention to file a claim was not met, thus barring the claim.

The state has had the benefit of the labor performed and materials furnished of the value claimed and for which it has never paid a cent.

You must be