New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

HIDALGO v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-016-003, Claim No. 106611, Motion No. M-72098


Synopsis


Motion to strike affirmative defense relating to timeliness was granted.

Case Information

UID:
2007-016-003
Claimant(s):
MANUEL HIDALGO
Claimant short name:
HIDALGO
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
106611
Motion number(s):
M-72098
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Manuel Hidalgo, Pro se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
January 5, 2007
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

In his claim, Manuel Hidalgo alleges medical malpractice in connection with treatment he received while incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. Mr. Hidalgo moves to strike the State’s first affirmative defense.[1] In its first affirmative defense, the State essentially asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction over any conduct alleged by claimant to have occurred earlier than July 28, 2001, which is ninety days prior to October 25, 2001, the date on which claimant served his notice of intention. Claimant argues that such defense should be stricken on the basis of the doctrine of continuous treatment, and defendant “agrees that the continuous treatment doctrine does apply” here. See ¶10 of the September 18, 2006 affirmation of Carol A. Cocchiola.

Accordingly, having reviewed the submissions[2], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-72098 be granted to the extent that the State’s first affirmative defense, consisting of paragraphs 7 and 8 of its answer, be stricken.


January 5, 2007
New York, New York

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




  1. [1]Although claimant’s notice of motion refers only to paragraph 8 of defendant’s answer, it is clear from both parties’ submission that they consider this a motion to strike the first affirmative defense, which consists of both paragraphs 7 and 8.
  2. [2]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion with affidavit in support; and defendant’s responsive affirmation with exhibit A.