You are here: / / CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT...

CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the claim, alleging employment discrimination, did not comply with the specificity requirements of Court of Claims Act section 11 and was properly dismissed:

“Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and the total sum claimed” … . “The purpose of the pleading requirements contained therein is to provide a sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability” … . To that end, the Court of Claims Act does not require defendant “to ferret out or assemble information that section 11 (b) obligates the claimant to allege”… . Strict compliance with the pleading requirements contained in Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) is required, and the failure to satisfy any of the pleading requirements is a jurisdictional defect … .

We agree with the Court of Claims that the claim, consisting of 88 prolix paragraphs, raises vague, conclusory and non-linear allegations that lack context and fail to provide a coherent and sufficiently detailed description of the particulars of the claim to enable defendant to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and extent of its liability… . Many of the allegations fail to provide a time and place when and where the alleged conduct occurred (see Court of Claims Act § 11 [b]), and, for those allegations that specify a date or general time period when alleged conduct occurred, the nature of the claim or identity and role of the individuals involved cannot be adequately ascertained… . Clark v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06844, Third Dept 10-11-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURT OF CLAIMS ACT, CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
SECURITY CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE OF OFF-TRACK BETTING FACILITY DESPITE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DESIGNATION IN AGREEMENT.
Waiver of Appeal Invalid; Counsel Did Not Take Position Adverse to Client Re: Pro Se Motion
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ZONING BOARD IMPROPERLY BOWED TO THE OBJECTIONS BY TWO NEIGHBORS.
TERMINATION OF FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PURCHASED OFFICE FURNITURE AFTER HE WAS HIRED TO WORK FROM HOME AND WAS INJURED CARRYING THE FURNITURE TO HIS HOME OFFICE; THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANALYZED THE CASE UNDER A RIGID NEW STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED STANDARD (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Negligent Training and Supervision Causes of Action Properly Survived Summary Judgment/Lawsuit Stemmed from Sexual Contact Between an Employee of Defendant Residential Facility and Plaintiff, Who Was 14 Years Old

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO... CLAIMANT-NURSE’S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE...