I contacted Mr. Roper and asked him about how he could dismiss the Florida decisions cited by Cabinetmaniac which seemed to show that standing is an affirmative defense in New York. Mr. Roper said I was the fifth person that contacted him about this thread. See:
"Is Standing Jurisdictional-N.J."
Just as e, Lucky and others have stated, Mr. Roper explained that the cited decisions were actually not holdings in support of Cabinetmaniac's assertions. Rather, he said these were obiter dicta, were not actually holdings of the Florida court and afforded no authority whatsoever in support of Cabinetmaniac's assertion!
When I asked him to further explain, he told me to look up "dicta" or "obiter dicta" in a legal encylopedia. He said that Bouvier's legal dictionary and older versions of Black's Legal Dictionary are available online, including at Google Scholar. He also right off the top of his head cited two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that explained the concept:
Here is what Black's Legal Dictionary, 2nd ed (1910) says:
"Dicta are opinions of a judge which do not
embody the resolution or determination of the
couit, and made without argument, or full consideration
of the point, are not the professed deliberate
determinations of the judge himself.
Obiter dicta are such opinions uttered by the
way, not upon the point or question pending, as
if turning aside for the time from the main topic
of the case to collateral subjects. Rohrbach v.
Insurance Co., 62 N. Y. 47, 58, 20 Am. Rep.
I have to say that I have always been impressed by Mr. Roper's posts at the Forum, but actually speaking to him is really amazing. His total understanding and control of the law and legal principles is just remarkable.
He basically said that unless the cited case actually held that a defendant bore the burden of proof on a defense, that by definition the defense couldn't possilby be an affirmative defense.
I looked again at Cabinetmaniac's cases and Mr. Roper, once again, is clearly right, as even Cabinetmaniac seems to now concede.