New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SCOTT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-014-523, Claim No. 101244, Motion No. M-61779


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to renew a motion to strike two affirmative defenses, which was denied, is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2000-014-523
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL K. SCOTT
Claimant short name:
SCOTT
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101244
Motion number(s):
M-61779
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Michael K. Scott, Pro se
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: J. Gardner Ryan, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 29, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


The following papers were read on the claimant's motion to renew: Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support; Affirmation in Opposition. Filed papers: Claim, Answer.

Upon the foregoing papers, the claimant's motion is denied.

By Order filed March 23, 2000 (Motion No. 60828), the claimant's motion to strike the First and Third Affirmative Defenses in the defendant's Answer was denied, on the ground that the claimant's submission was insufficient to demonstrate that either defense is without merit or not adequately stated. CPLR 3211(b).

"An application for leave to renew must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made known to the court." Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 568. The claimant's submission herein does not include any such additional material facts, and must, therefore, be denied.


September 29, 2000
New York, New York

HON. S. MICHAEL NADEL
Judge of the Court of Claims