New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

URENA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-009-005, Claim No. 109727, Motion No. M-69234


Synopsis


Claimant's motion to strike the State's affirmative defense set forth in its Answer was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2005-009-005
Claimant(s):
RAFAEL URENA
Claimant short name:
URENA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
109727
Motion number(s):
M-69234
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant's attorney:
RAFAEL URENA, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Joel L. Marmelstein, Esq.,
Assistant Attorney GeneralOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 15, 2005
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant has brought this motion seeking an order striking the sole affirmative defense contained in defendant's Verified Answer.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support 1,2


Affirmation in Opposition, with Exhibit 3

Correspondence from claimant dated October 15, 2004, with Attachments 4


Filed Papers: Claim, Verified Answer.

In his claim, claimant alleges that he was assaulted by another inmate on September 3, 2003, at a time when he was incarcerated at Oneida Correctional Facility. He alleges that the State was negligent in failing to provide him with proper protection from this assault.

In this motion, claimant seeks an order striking the sole affirmative defense contained in defendant's Verified Answer, which asserts that any injuries or damages suffered by claimant may have been caused in whole or in part by his culpable conduct. Claimant apparently contends that this affirmative defense, as well as other denials set forth in defendant's answer, are meritless and therefore should be stricken.

However, affirmative defenses are not dispositive of a claim, but are merely assertions of a party, absent prejudice, that will not be stricken. Pursuant to CPLR 3024(b), "[a] party may move to strike any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading." In this particular matter, the affirmative defense raised by the defendant is not prejudicial or scandalous in any respect, and was properly included by the State in its Verified Answer.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-69234 is hereby DENIED.


February 15, 2005
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims