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
IN THIS “ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” AND “FALSIYFING BUSINESS RECORDS” PROSECUTION, THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED AFTER A HEARING OF WHICH HE HAD NOTICE AND IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE HIS ANSWERING “NO” TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS FALSE; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
BECAUSE IT WAS POSSIBLE THE STATE WOULD REFUSE TO INDEMNIFY DEFENDANT DOCTORS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE PRISON INMATE, THE SIMILAR ACTION IN SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BUT RATHER THE SUPREME COURT ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT).
STIPULATION COMPLIED WITH THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT AND STATED THE PROPER STANDARD FOR AN UPWARD MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).
Purchaser of a Firearm is an Accomplice of the Seller for Corroboration Purposes
TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS REHIRED AFTER THE STRIKE, THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT ASSURED CLAIMANT OF THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK DURING THE STRIKE, THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SEVEN-WEEK SUSPENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING A STRIKE PERMITTED BY LABOR LAW 592 (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Statement that He Was Thinking About Talking to an Attorney, Coupled With the Officer’s Interpretation of that Statement as a Request for Counsel, Rendered Invalid Defendant’s Subsequent Agreement to Speak with the Officer without an Attorney Present
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS PLACING A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PERSONS WHO CAN BE PLACED IN LARGE (AT LEAST 80-BED) ADULT HOMES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (THIRD DEPT). ​

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...