New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

QUINONES v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2008-016-045, Claim No. 115096, Motion No. M-75146


Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):
Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant’s attorney:
Alberto Quinones, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney GeneralBy: Carol A. Cocchiola, Esq., AAG
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
August 18, 2008
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Claimant Alberto Quinones moves for an order striking the State’s affirmative defenses. Mr. Quinones’s underlying claim “is for the gross negligence of the defendant for confining claimant in a Special Housing Unit . . . for approximately 19 years, from 1988 to 2008 . . .” Claim, ¶2. The State’s affirmative defenses are not dispositive of a claim, and like the allegations in the claim itself, are merely assertions made by a party. Striking affirmative defenses is generally not warranted in the absence of a showing of prejudice by the claimant. See, e.g., 5 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶3018.14 at 30-432. In this case, however, certain of the State’s affirmative defenses have jurisdictional implications and are thus appropriate to address.

In the first affirmative defense, the State alleges that the claim was not timely served and filed within ninety days of accrual as required by §§10 and 11 of the Court of Claims Act (the “Act”). As set forth above, claimant alleges that he has been in the SHU for 19 years. As such, this defense may be valid with regard to a portion of claimant’s time in confinement, and such issue can be addressed at trial. Similarly, the State’s second affirmative defense, in which it is asserted that the claim is barred by the expiration of the statute of limitations, can also be addressed at trial.

In the fourth affirmative defense, it is asserted that the claim fails to state a date of accrual as required by §11 of the Act; ¶4 of the claim alleges that it accrued in February 2008.

In the fifth affirmative defense, it is alleged that the claim does not comply with §11 of the Act in that it fails to “include any particularization of the nature of the cause of action and the defendant’s conduct in regard to it . . .” As set forth above, the claim states that it is for improper confinement in the Special Housing Unit for 19 years, and claimant goes on to describe the conditions of such confinement in some detail. I find that such is sufficient for the purposes of §11 of the Act.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions[1], IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-75146 be granted to the extent that the State’s fourth and fifth affirmative defenses shall be deemed stricken, and such motion shall otherwise be denied.

August 18, 2008
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims

  1. [1]The following were reviewed: claimant’s notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits A and B; and defendant’s affirmation in opposition.