New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims
SHANNON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2010-016-059, Claim No. 118387, Motion No. M-78515

Synopsis

Motion to strike affirmative defenses was denied.

Case information

UID: 2010-016-059
Claimant(s): JESSE SHANNON
Claimant short name: SHANNON
Footnote (claimant name) :
Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Third-party claimant(s):
Third-party defendant(s):
Claim number(s): 118387
Motion number(s): M-78515
Cross-motion number(s):
Judge: Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney: Jesse Shannon, Pro Se
Defendant's attorney: Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General
By: Roberto Barbosa, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:
Signature date: September 24, 2010
City: New York
Comments:
Official citation:
Appellate results:
See also (multicaptioned case)

Decision

Claimant Jesse Shannon moves to strike the State's affirmative defenses. In his claim, Mr. Shannon alleges that because of defendant's negligence, items of his personal property went missing on December 15, 2009 while he was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility.

In its first affirmative defense, the State alleges that any damages sustained by claimant were caused in whole or part by his own conduct. In the second affirmative defense, it asserted that if claimant has settled or released the State in connection with this claim, he will "be precluded from relitigating those issues . . ." In the third affirmative defense, it is asserted that claimant has not demonstrated that he has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him by the Department of Correctional Facilities, as is required by 10.9 of the Court of Claims Act, such that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Shannon's claim.

The State's affirmative defenses are not dispositive of this claim, and like the allegations in the claim itself, are merely assertions made by a party. To the extent that they are raised at trial, claimant will be afforded the opportunity to dispute them. 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. Here, claimant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

In view of the foregoing, having reviewed the submissions(1) , IT IS ORDERED that motion no. M-78515 be denied.

September 24, 2010

New York, New York

Alan C. Marin

Judge of the Court of Claims


1. The following were reviewed: claimant's notice of motion with affidavit in support and exhibits A through C; defendant's affirmation in opposition; and claimant's reply affirmation.