New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2004-015-423, Claim No. 109116, Motion No. M-68622


Synopsis


Claimant's motion for an order directing trial and expressing opposition to certain defenses set forth in the answer denied as unnecessary.

Case Information

UID:
2004-015-423
Claimant(s):
KEVIN WILLIAMS
Claimant short name:
WILLIAMS
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109116
Motion number(s):
M-68622
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant's attorney:
Kevin Williams, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Kathleen M. Resnick, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
August 20, 2004
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The claimant by the instant motion seeks to express his opposition to defenses contained in the defendant's verified answer and moves for an order directing a trial of the instant claim. The motion is denied. The notice of motion filed June 3, 2004 specifies the relief sought as "[t]rial for claimant since subject matter jurisdiction is within this honorable court." Similarly the wherefore clause of claimant's sworn statement in support of the motion (improperly labeled "Notice of Motion in Opposition"), in relevant part, also requests "that he be granted a trial in the matter . . . ". Although claimant expresses his disagreement with defenses asserted in the answer he has not requested that either the answer or any specific defenses be stricken. Under New York Practice one need not move for an order directing that a trial of an action take place. The filing of a note of issue by a party, either voluntarily or at the Court's direction pursuant to CPLR 3216, places the matter on the Court's trial calendar (see CPLR 3402 [a]). In most instances the filing of the note of issue occurs after the parties have completed discovery (see e.g. Ireland v GEICO Corp., 2 AD3d 917; Easley v Van Dyke, 110 AD2d 967; Kerwick v Orange County Pub., Div. of Ottaway Newspapers, 110 AD2d 1016), the completion of which is duly noted on the required certificate of readiness which accompanies the note of issue (see 22 NYCRR 206.12).

The instant action was commenced by service on March 15, 2004 and filing of a verified claim on March 31, 2004. A verified answer was served and filed on April 8, 2004. The motion papers do not relate whether any discovery has yet occurred or if there are outstanding demands for discovery served by either party. In any event it does not appear that the matter is trial ready at this time.

Accordingly, the claimant's motion is denied.


August 20, 2004
Saratoga Springs, New York

HON. FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Judge of the Court of Claims


The Court considered the following papers:
  1. Notice of motion dated May 18, 2004;
  2. Statement of Kevin Williams sworn to May 28, 2004;
  3. Affirmation of Kathleen M. Resnick dated June 25, 2004 with exhibits.