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
Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even If Prepared Solely for Litigation/No Other Way for Claimants to Obtain Relevant Evidence
Retroactive Transfer of Liability to Special Fund Proper
Jury’s Finding that the Defendant Was Negligent but that the Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Should Have Been Granted—New Trial Ordered
PURSUANT TO A MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, THE WEAPON-POSSESSION COUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED FROM THE MENACING AND ASSAULT COUNTS, IN WHICH DISPLAY OF A WEAPON WAS ALLEGED; THE SIROIS HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE VICTIM TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY, THEREFORE THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).
THE ISSUANCE DATE OF A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DECISION BY A HEARING OFFICER IS THE DATE THE DECISION IS MAILED; THE 60-DAY APPEAL PERIOD STARTS RUNNING ON THE DATE OF MAILING; HERE DOCCS DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE DECISION WAS MAILED AND THEREFORE FAILED TO PROVE THE APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY; THE DATE STAMPED BY A POSTAGE METER IS NOT NECESSARILY THE DATE OF MAILING (THIRD DEPT).
In College Disciplinary Action, Victim Need Not Testify—Failure to Detail Factual Findings in Determination Violates Due Process
NEW YORK WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TREATMENT GUIDELINES APPLY TO CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE MOVED TO AND ARE TREATED IN OTHER STATES (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...