In Graham v. Goord (301 A.D.2d 882 [3d Dept 2003]), a pro se inmate appealed the decision of former Presiding Judge Susan Phillips Read dismissing a claim on the ground that it was not verified. The appellate court affirmed, reciting the jurisdictional nature of requirements conditioning suit against the sovereign and stating "inasmuch as defendants timely raised the defense of lack of verification in their answer, we affirm dismissal of the claim." The inference that the defense has to be raised in the answer is admittedly confusing. If lack of verification is dealt with as under the CPLR, then defendant would have to give notice well before an answer was due; if, on the other hand, verification is considered a jurisdictional requirement, then the defense may be raised at any time. Nevertheless, it appears that the Third Department has adopted the view that in Court of Claims practice, the requirement that verification of claims and notices of intention is a nonwaivable jurisdictional requirement and that, unlike the practice in other courts, the remedy available to defendant is not limited to that found in CPLR 3022.