New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

STURDIVANT v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-015-36, Claim No. 101191, Motion No. M-61423


Synopsis


The defendant has a statutory right to receive a bill of particulars from claimant setting forth the specifics of the claim (CPLR § 3041).

Case Information

UID:
2000-015-36
Claimant(s):
RANDOLPH STURDIVANT
Claimant short name:
STURDIVANT
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101191
Motion number(s):
M-61423
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
Randolph Sturdivant, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Joel L. Marmelstein, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
May 9, 2000
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

There being no opposition, the motion of the defendant for an order pursuant to CPLR 3042 precluding the claimant from offering any proof at the trial of this claim with respect to the matters of which particulars were demanded by the defendant's demand for a bill of particulars served on November 2, 1999 is granted unless the claimant serves upon the defendant a verified bill of particulars within forty five days of the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry. This is a claim by an inmate appearing pro se to recover damages in the sum of $154.97. Defendant served a demand for a bill of particulars on November 2, 1999 to which the claimant has not responded, despite defense counsel's subsequent letter requesting a response.

In view of the lack of opposition to the motion and the defendant's statutory right to receive a bill of particulars, the defendant is entitled to a conditional order of preclusion.


May 9, 2000
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated March 27, 2000;
  2. Affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein dated March 27, 2000;
  3. Good faith affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein dated March 27, 2000.