New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

JONES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-019-581, Claim No. 106389-A, Motion No. M-65831


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to strike State's affirmative defenses is denied.

Case Information

UID:
2002-019-581
Claimant(s):
DAVID JONES
Claimant short name:
JONES
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106389-A
Motion number(s):
M-65831
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Claimant's attorney:
DAVID JONES, PRO SE
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Joseph F. Romani, Assistant Attorney General,of counsel
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
October 30, 2002
City:
Binghamton
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for an order striking all the affirmative defenses contained in the State's Verified Answer. The defendant State of New York (hereinafter "State") opposes said motion.


The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this motion:
  1. Claim, filed July 17, 2002.
  2. Verified Answer, filed August 16, 2002.
  3. Notice of Motion No. M-65831, sworn to August 28, 2002, and filed September 16, 2002.
  4. Affidavit of David Jones, in support of motion, sworn to September 9, 2002, with attachments.
  5. Affirmation of Joseph F. Romani, AAG, in opposition to motion, dated October 8, 2002, and filed October 10, 2002.
The Claim alleges that Claimant's right forearm was cut by a sharp edge on the feed-up slot in his cell during his incarceration at Southport Correctional Facility (hereinafter "Facility") on October 3, 2001. The Claim alleges that a Notice of Intention was served on the Attorney General's office on December 19, 2001. The Claim was filed with the Clerk of the Court on July 17, 2002. As a preliminary matter the Court notes that it encountered some difficulty in deciphering Claimant's handwritten pleadings and motion papers.


By way of this motion, Claimant seeks to strike each of the State's Affirmative Defenses. Generally, "[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading." (CPLR 3024 [b]). The affirmative defenses at issue here are standard including failure to state a claim, failure to particularize the claim in compliance with CCA 11, as well as allegations of culpable conduct on behalf of Claimant and/or a third party. Affirmative defenses are not dispositive of a claim and are merely assertions of a party, absent prejudice, that will not be stricken. (CPLR 3024; 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3018.14). None of these affirmative defenses are prejudicial or scandalous in any respect whatsoever. The State properly included all these affirmative defenses in its Verified Answer. Claimant's motion is denied in its entirety.


Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Claimant's motion, Motion No. M-65831, is DENIED.


October 30, 2002
Binghamton, New York

HON. FERRIS D. LEBOUS
Judge of the Court of Claims