New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ELDRIDGE v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2007-030-523, Claim No. 108949, Motion No. M-72865


Synopsis


Claimant’s motion to strike an additional answer is granted. In the motion, Claimant recites a labored procedural history to this claim, wherein it was dismissed for a failure to pay a required filing fee, and then restored. The original verified claim was responded to by a verified answer served within the forty (40) day time constraints. [22 NYCRR §206.7(a)]. Having been restored, the claim relates back to its original service period. An additional answer then served by the State should not have been interposed in relation to the restored claim - indeed it does not even attach the claim number in any event - and is hereby stricken. If Defendant intended to amend its original verified answer served in March, 2004, it should have made an appropriate motion. [See Civil Practice Law and Rules §3025(b); 22 NYCRR §206.7 (b)]

Case Information

UID:
2007-030-523
Claimant(s):
MICHAEL L. ELDRIDGE
Claimant short name:
ELDRIDGE
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
108949
Motion number(s):
M-72865
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Claimant’s attorney:
MICHAEL L. ELDRIDGE, PRO SE
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO, NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: MARY B. KAVANEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
May 2, 2007
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

.
Decision

The following papers were read and considered on claimant’s motion to strike the answer:

1-3 Notice of Motion; Affidavit in Support of Motion to Strike Defendant’s Verified Answer by Michael L. Eldridge, Claimant and attachments; Memorandum of Law

  1. Affirmation in Opposition by Mary B. Kavaney, Assistant Attorney General and attachments
5,6 Filed papers: claim, answer

After carefully considering the papers submitted and the applicable law the motion to strike an answer served in or about September 2004 is granted.

Claimant recites a labored procedural history to this claim, wherein it was dismissed for a failure to pay a required filing fee, and then restored based upon what appears to be the confusion generated by varied motion practice concerning his poor person status. The present motion was just filed when the claim had been calendared for trial, further confusing matters. Suffice it to say, a verified claim filed with the Clerk’s office on February 23, 2004 was responded to in a verified answer filed with the Clerk’s office on March 5, 2004. The answer was served within the time constraints present in the Court of Claims, in that the defendant is allowed forty (40) days to answer. 22 NYCRR §206.7(a). Having been restored, the claim relates back to its original service period. The additional answer[1] served by the State in September 2004 should not have been interposed in relation to the restored claim, and indeed does not even attach the claim number, and is hereby stricken. If Defendant intended to amend its original verified answer served in March 2004, it should have made an appropriate motion. See Civil Practice Law and Rules §3025(b); 22 NYCRR §206.7 (b).

May 2, 2007
White Plains, New York

HON. THOMAS H. SCUCCIMARRA
Judge of the Court of Claims




[1]. Notably, it appears claimant himself may have added to the confusion by attempting to file and/or serve another claim, which the defendant may have been responding to. In any event, the only claim before this court is Claim Number 108949, originally filed in February 2004 and restored in October 2004.