From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suarez v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 26, 2009
60 A.D.3d 1243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 501960.

March 26, 2009.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Ferreira, J.), entered December 21, 2006, which denied claimant's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defenses and granted defendant's cross motion to partially dismiss the claim.

Efrain Suarez, Malone, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Julie S. Mereson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Stein and McCarthy, JJ.


Claimant, an inmate, allegedly fell out of bed and sustained injuries. Claimant thereafter commenced this action in the Court of Claims, alleging that prison personnel acted negligently and that his civil rights were violated by those employees' failure to correct known deficiencies with the bed and their deliberate indifference to the medical needs arising from his injuries. Defendant answered and asserted four affirmative defenses, which claimant moved to strike. Defendant withdrew one of the defenses and cross-moved to dismiss claimant's constitutional claims. The Court of Claims denied claimant's motion and granted defendant's cross motion. Claimant appeals.

Inasmuch as claimant has failed to brief any issue regarding defendant's successful cross motion, we deem any argument in that regard to be waived ( see Custer v Cortland Hous. Auth., 266 AD2d 619, 620 n 1 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 761 [2000]).

We affirm. As is relevant here, defendant alleged contributory and third-party negligence defenses in its answer, and those allegations must be accepted as true on a motion to strike ( see Capital Tel. Co. v Motorola Communications Elecs., 208 AD2d 1150, 1150). Claimant's motion papers are devoid of any evidence showing that neither he nor a third party was to some degree responsible for his alleged injuries and/or damages. As claimant failed to conclusively show that the defenses lacked merit, the Court of Claims appropriately denied his motion ( see Pellegrino v Millard Fillmore Hosp., 140 AD2d 954, 955; compare Thy Tran v Avis Rent A Car, 289 AD2d 731, 732).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs. [ See 14 Misc 3d 1230(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52566(U).]


Summaries of

Suarez v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 26, 2009
60 A.D.3d 1243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Suarez v. State

Case Details

Full title:EFRAIN SUAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 26, 2009

Citations

60 A.D.3d 1243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2269
876 N.Y.S.2d 195

Citing Cases

Adams v. State

A copy of the amended claim is attached to claimant's motion papers, but the verified answer to the amended…

Wright v. State

In reviewing a motion to dismiss an affirmative defense, [the] Court must liberally construe the pleadings in…