New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SANCHEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-016-213, Claim No. 104064, Motion No. M-63944


Synopsis


Motion to dismiss affirmative defenses was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2001-016-213
Claimant(s):
ROBERTO SANCHEZ
Claimant short name:
SANCHEZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
104064
Motion number(s):
M-63944
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Roberto Sanchez
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
December 14, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his underlying claim, Roberto Sanchez asserts that defendant was negligent in not providing him with a wheelchair on a trip outside Sullivan Correctional Facility. This is claimant's motion to strike the State's first and only affirmative defense. It is asserted in that defense that the damages suffered by claimant were contributed to by claimant's culpable conduct including assumption of risk and want of care and that claimant's potential recovery at trial should be diminished vis a vis any such culpable conduct. Affirmative defenses are not dispositive of a claim. Like the allegations in a claim, they are merely assertions made by a party. There is no reason to strike affirmative defenses in the absence of prejudice. See., e.g., Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3018.14 at 30-410. Claimant has alleged no prejudice in this case, nor has he asserted that any scandalous matter is contained in defendant's pleading. See CPLR 3024.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M63944 be denied.


December 14, 2001
New York, New York

HON. ALAN C. MARIN
Judge of the Court of Claims




  1. [1]Along with the pleadings, the following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits A and B; and defendant's affirmation in opposition with exhibit A.