New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

DOZIOS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK #2000-028-101518, Claim No. 102743, Motion No. M-62162


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Claimant's attorney:
Defendant's attorney:
BY: Belinda A. Wagner, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 16, 2000

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


The following papers were read on defendant's motion for an order of dismissal or, alternatively, for a more definite statement.

Notice of Motion and Supporting Affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner, Esq., AAG, filed August 9, 2000, with annexed Exhibit A ("Wagner affirmation")

Reply affirmation of Belinda A. Wagner, Esq. AAG, filed September 6, 2000

Submission in Opposition of Christopher J. Dozois, pro se, filed August 30, 2000

("Dozois submission")

The substantive portion of this claim, which was filed on July 14, 2000 and served on the Attorney General on July 17, 2000, reads as follows, with the portion in italics part of the pre-printed form that was used:

This claim arises from the acts or omissions of the defendant. Details of said acts or omission are as follows
: non-concentual unwitting research currently for the Focus Center EM/RF Microwave Interconnect Program on an Interdisciplinary leval. These varioius forms of Research include; Computer Interconnects,

Beam steering and targeting; visual neurotransmitter Research, Behavioral

Neuroscience, neuropharmacology, psychopharmacology, sexual behavior research, memory research, psychic driving research, photic driving research. All of the above mentioned has been doe in the last three years and many forms are current stemming from early childhood research of sub-projects of MKUltra. Current effects started with Fraternal Insurgency to induce; financial hardship, destructing of family. Economic sanctions, extreme emotional stress and ostricization from society. All of

which was done so I could not fight non-consentual testing. The use of thought monitoring to prevent myself from overcoming economic hardship and or a productive lifestyle. Research started in the 1960s and has taken place periodically since to current Focus Center. The above allegations are not limited to said Allegations.

The place where the act(s) took place is
: Albany NY, Eugene Oregon, Burlington VT, Bozeman MT.

This claim accrued on the
31 day of March 1964 till present & ongoing.

Counsel for defendant, stating that the State does not operate a "Focus Center", has moved for an order dismissing this claim for failure to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted and as untimely or, alternatively, for an order directing claimant to provide a more definite statement pursuant to CPLR 3024(a). In opposition to the motion, claimant has submitted a stack of documents that is five inches high and includes, in addition to a statement from claimant, copies of letters, magazine articles and other material.

Pursuant to CPLR 3013, "[s]tatements in a pleading shall be sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, intended to be proved and the material elements of each cause of action or defense."
The principal purpose of a pleading, particularly a claim or complaint, is to provide notice, to advise the opposing party of the claim (Foley v D'Agostino, 21 AD2d 60). Although the "fact pleading" requirement of the earlier Civil Practice Act was dropped with the adoption of CPLR 3013,[1] still the "statements" in a pleading should be factual and "provide a factual basis for each cause of action or defense" (5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice: CPLR, ¶ 3013.03, see also, ¶ 3013.01; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Consol Laws of NY, Book 7B, C3013:4, at 723). Conclusory allegations alone are insufficient to meet the pleading requirements of either CPLR 3013 (Goldberg v Sitomer, Sitomer & Porges, 63 NY2d 831, cert denied, 470 US 1028; Dibble v Board of Coop. Educ. Serv., 103 AD2d 1026; Spallina v Giannoccaro, 98 AD2d 103) or Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) (Heisler v State of New York, 78 AD2d 767, Patterson v State of New York, 54 AD2d 147). In addition,
allegations based solely on vague, conclusory and overly-general statements do not meet the pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (a) (Heisler v State of New York, supra; Patterson v State of New York, supra; see also CPLR 3013).

As to form, pleadings are to "consist of plain and concise statements in consecutively numbered paragraphs" with each paragraph containing a single allegation "as far as practicable" (CPLR 3014). Separate causes of action or defenses are to be stated separately. CPLR 3024 provides that "[i]f a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a response," that party may move for a more definite statement. A document that was described as "a confusing discourse of conclusory allegations with cross-references to voluminous documents" was held not to state a viable cause of action (Hodge v State of New York, 213 AD2d 766).

It would be accurate to say that the Court is unable to discern, either from the claim or from claimant's voluminous submission in response to this motion, any viable cause of action against defendant State of New York. Further, it would appear that any cause of action asserted against any party must have arisen more than ninety days prior to the filing of the claim, which would deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear a claim against the State on grounds of untimeliness. Because, however, claimant is prosecuting this action pro se, he will be permitted one further attempt to properly plead his claim. Claimant is put on notice, however, that the Court expects a clear, concise document that complies with the rules regarding content and form that are set out above.

Defendant's motion is granted insofar as it seeks a more definite statement and ,otherwise, denied. Claimant is directed to file an amended claim that complies in both substance and form with the statutory rules of pleading (i.e., CPLR 3013, 3014, 3024) within sixty (60) days of the date this decision is file-stamped.

October 16, 2000
Albany, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

Under CPA § 241, only "material" facts could be pled and a pleading that incorporated legal conclusions or "evidentiary" facts could be dismissed.