In Sinacore v. State of New York (176 Misc 2d 1, 671 NYS2d 896 [Ct Cl 1998]), Judge James P. King discussed in detail and at length Court of Claims Act 11 (c) and how courts have defined "with particularity," stating that, in order for an affirmative defense to apprise a claimant that a defect relating to timeliness was being alleged, the statements contained therein should inform the claimant: "of the following facts: (1) that the claim or notice of intention was not filed or served in a timely fashion; (2) that the claim should have been filed at some earlier time; and (3) the statutory authority of the requirement that was allegedly violated. "The appellate courts have not always insisted on express reference to the third element, the statutory authority of the requirement that was violated. However, mention of the first two elements--the fact of noncompliance and the action that would have been proper--is invariably present when the defendant's statement has been found to be sufficiently particular." (176 Misc 2d at 9, 671 NYS2d 896.)