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
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
, 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