Opinion
# 2015-050-009 Claim No. 122958 Motion No. M-86174
03-09-2015
STEVEN MARSHALL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Steven Marshall, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Wendy E. Morcio, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
The claimant moves for relief pursuant to CPLR ? 3126 and 3042. Defendant opposes the motion. The Court finds the claimant's motion to be without merit. Defendant's responses reflect a successful effort to provide detailed particularization of the affirmative defenses set forth in it's answer which are sufficient to apprise claimant of the bases for the asserted affirmative defenses as a matter of pleading.
Case information
UID: | 2015-050-009 |
Claimant(s): | STEVEN MARSHALL |
Claimant short name: | MARSHALL |
Footnote (claimant name) : | |
Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
Footnote (defendant name) : | |
Third-party claimant(s): | |
Third-party defendant(s): | |
Claim number(s): | 122958 |
Motion number(s): | M-86174 |
Cross-motion number(s): | |
Judge: | STEPHEN J. LYNCH |
Claimant's attorney: | Steven Marshall, Pro Se |
Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General By: Wendy E. Morcio, Assistant Attorney General |
Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
Signature date: | March 9, 2015 |
City: | Hauppauge |
Comments: | |
Official citation: | |
Appellate results: | |
See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The claimant moves for relief pursuant to CPLR ? 3126 and 3042. Defendant opposes the motion.
The claimant is a self-represented inmate confined at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility at Comstock, New York. Claimant received a bill of particulars as to defendant's affirmative defenses on May 30, 2014 (filed June 2, 2014). Claimant sent three letters to defendant's counsel asserting various objections to most answers set forth in defendant's bill of particulars and demanding the supplementation of said bill of particulars. In the context of the instant motion, those objections by claimant are reiterated.
Having reviewed the individual items of claimant's demand for a bill of particulars dated March 24, 2014 and the defendant's bill of particulars dated May 30, 2014, this Court finds the claimant's motion to be entirely without merit. The defendant's responses reflect a successful effort to provide detailed particularization of the affirmative defenses set forth in defendant's answer dated August 22, 2013 which are sufficient to apprise claimant of the bases for the asserted affirmative defenses as a matter of pleading (see Joseph v Nissan North American, Inc., 2002 NY Slip Op 50413 [U] [NY Sup App Term]). Further detail may be appropriately pursued through disclosure devices in discovery available under CPLR Article 31. The Court sua sponte directs that all discovery herein be completed by December 31, 2015.
Based upon the foregoing, the motion is denied.
March 9, 2015
Hauppauge, New York
STEPHEN J. LYNCH
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on the claimant's motion to strike defendant's answer:
1. Notice of Motion, Affidavit in Support with Exhibits A through G.
2. Affidavit in Opposition with Exhibits A and B.
Filed Papers: Answer, Claimant's Demand for Bill of Particulars and Bill of Particulars.