In Protopappas v. Trustees of the Spence School, Inc., No. 158193/2024, 2025 WL 1422502 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County May 14, 2025), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for plaintiff to provide a “more definite statement” of what is set forth in their complaint.
From the decision:
Defendants contend that plaintiff’s complaint is vague and ambiguous, because plaintiff’s allegations do not sufficiently specify the acts of discrimination allegedly perpetrated against plaintiff or the surrounding context. (NYSCEF No. 7 at 4.) Defendants further contend that plaintiff conflates her race and national-origin discrimination claims. (Id. at 5.) On the other hand, plaintiff contends that her complaint provides sufficient notice of her claims against defendants and that her complaint is “not so vague and ambiguous that they are unable to frame a response.” (Mirage Rest., Inc. v Majestic Chevrolet, Inc., 75 AD2d 808, 808 [2d Dept 1980].)
The court agrees with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s detailed and lengthy complaint provides ample notice of the conduct alleged and the surrounding context, without providing so much information that defendants are unable to determine which allegations are material to plaintiff’s claims. The complaint’s allegations are clear enough to warrant a response from defendants. (See id.) Moreover, to the extent defendants contend that plaintiff’s allegations do not provide enough information about key aspects of her claims, that contention would go to whether the complaint states a cause of action—and defendants expressly disclaim any intent to seek dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for lack of a cause of action. (See NYSCEF No. 17 at 5 [reply mem of law].)
The court also denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel responses to her discovery requests, noting that “plaintiff’s failure to provide an affirmation attesting to her efforts to confer with defendants about discovery—or that conferral would be futile—undermines her cross-motion.”