New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

TAYLOR v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2005-015-038, Claim No. 110325, Motion No. M-70161


Synopsis


Court denied claimant's motion to strike defenses.

Case Information

UID:
2005-015-038
Claimant(s):
JAMES TAYLOR
Claimant short name:
TAYLOR
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
110325
Motion number(s):
M-70161
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
FRANCIS T. COLLINS
Claimant’s attorney:
James Taylor, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Honorable Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General
By: Barry Kaufman, EsquireAssistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
September 2, 2005
City:
Saratoga Springs
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Claimant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3024 to strike the defenses set forth in the defendant's answer is denied. The defendant's answer filed March 21, 2005 contains the following defenses:
AS AND FOR A FIRST DEFENSE

4. The negligence or culpable conduct of the claimant or some other party over whom the defendant had no control, caused or contributed to the injuries and/or damages alleged in the claim; claimant's award, if any, should be reduced in the proportion to such culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or such other parties in accordance with the provisions of CPLR Article 14-A.

AS AND FOR A SECOND DEFENSE
5. The claim fails to state a cause of action as claimant has not alleged full compliance with Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).

AS AND FOR A THIRD DEFENSE

6. The claim fails to state a cause of action as Claimant has not fully complied exhausted [sic] his administrative remedies as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).

AS AND FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE

7. If at all, defendant, the State of New York, is liable only with respect to property that claimant owned and rightfully possessed under New York State Department of Correctional Services' directives. To the extent that claimant did not own the property in question or possess the property in compliance with the terms and conditions of those directives, there can be no recovery. To the extent that the value of the property exceeded the limitations set forth in those directives, any recovery shall be correspondingly limited.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE

8. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and personal jurisdiction over defendant, the State of New York, because the claim is untimely; neither a claim nor a notice of intention was served within ninety days of the accrual of the claim as required by Court of Claims Act § § 10 (3) and 11, nor within 120 days as required by Court of Claims Act § 10 (9).

AS AND FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE

9. Claimant has compromised and settled his claim for the property which is the subject of this claim with the defendant, its agent and employees.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE

10. Defendant the State of New York's liability, if any, will be limited by any payment claimant has accepted on an administrative claim for losses alleged herein or by any release claimant has executed pertaining to liability alleged herein.

AS AND FOR A EIGHTH DEFENSE

11. With respect to unnumbered paragraphs set forth starting after paragraph numbered "2" of the claim, the failure to set forth numbers for each paragraph is improper as defendant was unable to properly evaluate each specific category set forth in the claim.

Although the claimant seeks an order striking the affirmative defenses raised by the defendant as legally insufficient and not supported by the record, both the notice of motion and claimant's affidavit in support seek such relief pursuant to CPLR 3024.

Subsection (a) of CPLR 3024 permits a party to move for a more definite statement where pleadings are vague or ambiguous. CPLR 3024 (b) authorizes a motion to strike "any scandalous or prejudicial matter unnecessarily inserted in a pleading."

None of the enumerated defenses set forth above contain scandalous or prejudicial matter and claimant's motion to strike the defenses pursuant to CPLR 3024 is denied (see Vasquez v State of New York, Ct Cl, November 13, 2003 [Claim No. 106144, Motion No. M-67468, CM-67590, UID # 2003-019-570[1]] Lebous, J. unreported).



September 2, 2005
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 10, 2005;
  1. Affidavit of James Taylor sworn to May 10, 2005 with exhibits;
  2. Affirmation of Barry Kaufman dated July 8, 2005 with exhibit.

[1].Unreported decisions from the Court of Claims are available via the internet at http://www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us./decision.htm.