CPLR § 3013 Particularity of statements generally
Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v Ramos, 2009 NY Slip Op 04361 (App. Div. 1st, 2009)
Insofar as pertinent, defendants' answer contains an affirmative
defense alleging, in its entirety, that "[p]laintiff's claims are
barred by the equitable doctrine of laches." In opposition to
plaintiff's motion to dismiss this defense, defendants' attorney
submitted an affirmation arguing that the alleged laches is
"self-explanatory" in that this action seeks to collect a 2004 judgment
entered in a 1997 action against the judgment debtor to recover unpaid
1992/1993 workers' compensation premiums. The motion court, in the
first order on appeal, correctly dismissed the defense as pleading only
a bare legal conclusion without supporting facts (CPLR 3013; see Robbins v Growney,
229 AD2d 356, 357-358 [1996]). Concerning the second order on appeal,
defendants have appealed only from that portion of the order as denied
that branch of their motion as sought to reargue or renew plaintiff's
motion to dismiss the laches defense. Thus, whether the motion court
properly denied the branch of the motion as sought leave to amend the
answer to assert the facts supporting the defense of laches is not
properly before this Court (see City of Mount Vernon v Mount Vernon Hous. Auth.,
235 AD2d 516, 517 [1997]). In any event, for the reasons stated, the
defense of laches is unavailable. We would add that the affirmation of [*2]defendants'
attorney submitted in support of the motion to amend the answer lacks
probative value with respect to the prejudice allegedly caused
defendants by plaintiff's delay of prosecution against the judgment
debtor (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562-563 [1980]).
The bold is mine.
bruteforcelawyer.com 