New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SHIVERS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-011-597, Claim No. 104072, Motion No. M-63795


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for a default judgment on the basis that the answer is a "nullity" because it does not indicate the claim number is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-011-597
Claimant(s):
DARRIN SHIVERS, 91 B 1541 The court sua sponte amends the caption to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Claimant short name:
SHIVERS
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
The court sua sponte amends the caption to reflect the only properly named defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104072
Motion number(s):
M-63795
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS J. McNAMARA
Claimant's attorney:
Darrin Shivers, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kevan J. Acton, Esq.,Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 31, 2001
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


Claimant has made a motion for a default judgment on the basis that the answer is a"nullity" because it does not indicate the claim number.

On a motion for a default judgment the moving party is required to provide proof of service of the claim, proof of the facts constituting the claim as well as proof of the default and the amount due (CPLR 3215[f]). That the answer was served without a claim number does not mean that the pleading is without effect. If there was a rule that a pleading without a claim number was without effect, the claim served by claimant, which did not bear a claim number would also be without effect. The motion is denied.

October 31, 2001
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. THOMAS J. MCNAMARA
Judge of the Court of Claims



Papers Submitted:

  1. Unsworn Affirmation in Support of Motion for Default Judgment dated June 26, 2001
  2. Affirmation in Opposition of Kevan J. Acton, Esq. dated June 8, 2001.