Opinion
# 2014-045-016 Claim No. 119696 Motion No. M-84626 Cross-Motion No. CM-84803
06-09-2014
HENRY R. TERRY v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Henry R. Terry, Pro Se Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Theresa N. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
motion to reargue, recusal etc.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-045-016 |
| Claimant(s): | HENRY R. TERRY |
| Claimant short name: | TERRY |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 119696 |
| Motion number(s): | M-84626 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | CM-84803 |
| Judge: | Gina M. Lopez-Summa |
| Claimant's attorney: | Henry R. Terry, Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Theresa N. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | June 9, 2014 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on these motions: Claimant's Notice of Motion, Claimant's Request for an Extension of time to Renew and Reargue the November 18, 2013 Order and Decision and to Amend Complaint with annexed Exhibit, Claimant's Affidavit to Renew and Reargue Dismissal of Claim with annexed Exhibits, Defendant's Notice of Cross Motion for Filing Injunction, Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion and in Support of Cross Motion for Filing Injunction with annexed Exhibits A-G and Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition to Affidavit to Renew and Reargue Dismissal of Claim.
Claimant, Henry Terry, pro se, has brought this motion seeking to an extension of time to Renew and Reargue the Court's prior Decision and Order concerning motion M-83629 which was filed on December 13, 2013; clarification of that Decision and Order and a request for a pre-motion conference. Defendant, State of New York, opposes the motion and cross-moves for a filing injunction barring claimant from making duplicative filings and/or seeking substantially the same relief on issues previously decided.
A motion seeking leave to renew requires the moving party to show new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or would demonstrate that there has been a change in law that would change the prior determination and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present the facts on the prior motion (CPLR 2221[e]). Claimant failed to establish new facts or information not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination. Accordingly, claimant's motion for leave to renew is denied.
A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the Court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied the controlling principle of law. In addition, a motion to reargue must be made within 30 days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of entry (CPLR 2221 [d]). It does not serve to provide a party an opportunity to reargue the same issues previously decided nor does it serve to provide a party the opportunity to advance arguments different from those presented in the original motion (Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979]).
Claimant also did not establish that the Court overlooked or misapprehended any facts or principles of law.
Claimant's request for clarification is palpably improper and is hereby denied as is the request for a pre-motion conference.
Defendant's request for a filing injunction is also denied at this time. However, claimant is cautioned that the continued filing of duplicative motions may result in appropriate sanctions. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, claimant's motion and defendant's cross motion are denied in their entirety.
June 9, 2014
Hauppauge, New York
Gina M. Lopez-Summa
Judge of the Court of Claims