New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

EDWARDS v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-110, Claim No. 106373, Motion No. M-65832


M-65881


Synopsis


Motion to strike affirmative defenses and motion to "dismiss" demand for bill of particulars were denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-016-110
Claimant(s):
CHRISTOPHER EDWARDS
Claimant short name:
EDWARDS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106373
Motion number(s):
M-65832M-65881
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Christopher Edwards
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: James E. Shoemaker, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 30, 2002
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

In his underlying claim, Christopher Edwards asserts that defendant acted wrongly in connection with the issuance to him of a disciplinary ticket and the subsequent hearing thereon. Motion No. M-65832 is Mr. Edwards' motion for an order striking the State's affirmative defenses. Motion No. M-65881 is his motion for an order "dismiss[ing] [the State's] Demand for [a] Bill of Particulars." With regard to affirmative defenses, the State alleges that: (1) the claim fails to state a cause of action against defendant; (2) that defendant's actions were privileged as being judicial, quasi-judicial or discretionary determinations made by agents or employees of defendant acting within the scope of their duties as public officials; and (3) that any injuries or damages suffered by claimant were caused in whole or part or were contributed to by the culpable conduct, including assumption of risk, of claimant.

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. It should be noted that in claimant's affidavit in support of this motion, he makes a request for an order granting him summary judgment. No showing has been made by claimant at this time that he is entitled to such relief.

With regard to Edwards' motion to "dismiss" the State's demand for a bill of particulars, he seems to assert that the demand is inapplicable because it relates to physical injury. However, he fails to annex a copy of such demand to his motion papers.[1] In its opposition papers, defendant asserts that its demand for a bill of particulars contains a few questions regarding the upcoming trial with the bulk of the demand relating to the damages claimant allegedly sustained as a result of defendant's actions, noting that Edwards alleges in his claim that he was damaged in the amount of $661,885.35. As defendant points out, if a particular question is not applicable to claimant, claimant can so specify. In sum, on the record before me, I am unable to find that defendant's demand for a bill of particulars is improper.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the parties' submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-65832 be denied and motion no. M-65881 be denied.



October 30, 2002
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]As exhibit A to his bill of particulars motion, claimant annexes a "Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Defendant's Affirmative Defense" with an affidavit in support. There are two documents entitled exhibit B: the first is a Woodbourne Correctional Facility memorandum regarding "Mandatory Callout Medical" and the second is a copy of the verification from defendant's answer.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed on motion no. M-65832: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits A-D; and defendant's affirmation in opposition. The following were reviewed on motion no. M-65881: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support, exhibit A and two exhibit B's; and defendant's affirmation in opposition.