In Williams v. New York State,1 the Appellate Division, Third Department, recently affirmed the New York State Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim holding that the failure to timely serve the Attorney General deprived the court of jurisdiction despite the claimant’s otherwise timely refiling under CPLR 205(a).
Claimant Alvin Williams originally filed a timely claim in June 2021 under the Child Victims Act (CVA), which created a revival window for childhood sexual abuse survivors to bring an otherwise time-barred action. The Court of Claims dismissed the initial action in July 2022 for failure to meet the pleading specificity requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b). The dismissal was not appealed by the claimant.
In December 2022, the claimant refiled his claim under CPLR 205(a), which provides a six-month grace period for recommencing certain actions that were timely initiated but dismissed on procedural grounds. Under Court of Claims Act § 11, an action is commenced when the claim is both filed and served on the state. While the claim was refiled within the required time frame, service upon the Attorney General occurred a week after the six-month deadline, thereby violating the requirements under CPLR 205(a).
The claimant argued that the failure to serve the Attorney General within the six-month period should be excused under CPLR 306(b), which allows for service of an initial pleading within 120 days of filing. The court explained that while CPLR 306(b) provides a timeline for service after commencement of an action, it does not apply in the Court of Claims. The CPLR may only be invoked in the Court of Claims where a procedural gap exists within the Court of Claims Act. In this context, CPLR 306(b) directly conflicts with Court of Claims Act § 11. In rejecting the claimant’s argument, the court reasoned that the state’s waiver of sovereign immunity mandates strict compliance with the jurisdictional rules of the Court of Claims.
The Williams decision is a cautionary reminder that procedural missteps can have irreparable consequences in litigation. Attorneys must diligently monitor compliance with all procedural prerequisites when litigating against the state, particularly under statutes like the CVA that carry significant temporal constraints.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact the author, Radhika Shukla, associate, at rshukla@barclaydamon.com; Matthew Larkin, Torts & Products Liability Practice Area chair, at mlarkin@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Torts & Products Liability Defense Practice Area.
12025 NY Slip Op 02977 (3d Dep’t, May 15, 2025).