Section 8 of the Court of Claims Act expressly provides that the State "hereby waives its immunity from liability ... provided the claimant complies with the limitations of this article" (see, Court of Claims Act 9 2 conditioning this court's jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim upon the requirement that "the claimant complies with the limitations of this article"). Applying a strict construction to the foregoing requires a conclusion that the State's waiver of immunity is expressly conditioned upon meeting the jurisdictional limitations contained in article II of the Court of Claims Act, including the limitations as to timely service and filing of a claim in section 10. As such, the limitations represent an integral part of the waiver, the failure to comply with which deprives this court of jurisdiction to entertain the claim ( Lichtenstein v. State of New York, 93 NY2d 911; Dreger v. New York State Thruway Auth., 81 NY2d 721; Crair v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 259 AD2d 586; Selkirk v. State of New York, 249 AD2d 818; Park v. State of New York, 226 AD2d 153). Therefore, this court joins with the decision of its sister States ( Butterfield v. State, 163 Ore App 227, 987 P2d 569; Allen v. Fauver, 327 NJ Super 14, 742 A2d 599), and Judge McNamara of this court (Bergmann v. State of New York, claim No. 97565, motion Nos. M-60457, M-60458, filed Nov. 23, 1999) in determining that the claimants' failure to meet the time limitation contained in Court of Claims Act 10 (4) requires the dismissal of all portions of the claim relative to matters occurring more than six months preceding the date upon which the claim was served and filed.